1.  GORDON   MELTOH 


LIBRARY 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 

Gift  of 

THE  INSTITUTE 

FOR  THE  STUDY  OF 

AMERICAN  RELIGION 


ORTHODOXY 


IN  THE 


OR,  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CASE, 


'THE  STATE  OF  INDIANA,  ON  RELATION  OF  GEORGE  K.  POYSER  AND  WILLIAM  A.  KING, 
PLAINTIFF,    Versus   THE  TRUSTEES   OF   THE   SALEM    CHURCH    OK   THE   METHO- 
DIST  SOCIETV   OF   THE    HAW-PATCH    CIRCUIT   OF   THE    WESTERN    DIVI- 
SION    OF     MICHIGAN,    ALIAS"  THE    TRUSTEES    OF    THE    SALEM 
PROTESTANT  METHODIST  CHURCH,  ALONZOT.  POYSER, 
DAVID  F.  DAMY,  JOHN  HOSTETTER,  JOHN  HITB, 
ANDALVIN  H.  RAMSBY,  DEFENDANTS," 


Which  was  Tried  in  the  Noble  County,  Indiana,  Circuit  Court, 

June  19  to  21,  1883,  and  in  which  was  involved 

the  Orthodoxy  of  the  Christian  Church 


Embracing  a  Verbatim  Report  of  the  Testimony  Given  in  the  Case 

EDITED  BY  J.  H.  EDWARDS 

To  which  is  appended  an  Argument  drawn  from  the  Testimony  in  the  Case 

BY  W.  D.  OWEN 

CINCINNATI 
STANDARD  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1883,  bj 

STANDARD  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PREFACE. 


This  book  is  dovoted  to  a  very  important  subject  in  the  religious 
world — nothing  less  than  the  historical  disturbing  element  in  Christendom 
— "orthodoxy."  What  is  the  true  teachii.g  of  the  Scriptures?  or  What  is 
true  orthodoxy,  as  it  is  related  to  human  redemption  and  salvation  ?  is  the 
one  question  which  has  connected  itself  with  all  the  controversies  of 
Christendom. 

The  Christian  Church  (Disciples  of  Christ),  which  has,  in  this  country, 
made  itself  so  potently  felt  in  the  domain  of  religious  thought  in  the  last 
half-century,  and  which,  in  that  time,  has  gathered  together  a  membership 
which  is  to-day  about  700,000,  and  is  rapidly  increasing,  and  which  mem- 
bership embraces  men  of  the  most  brilliant  minds,  enlarged  hearts,  and 
profound  scholarship — men  who  have  filled  all  the  responsible  positions  in 
society,  from  the  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  offices  of  the  govern- 
ment downward ;  such  men  as  President  James  A.  Garfield,  Judge  Jere. 
Black,  et  al. — has  been  forced  to  come  before  the  civil  courts  to  repel 
the  charge  of  non-orthodoxy.  The  interests  of  Bible  Christianity  were 
thought  to  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  the  employment  of  an 
official  reporter,  who  should  faithfully  report  this  case,  that  the  world 
might  know  what  the  result  would  be  when  the  legal  tests  were  applied 
to  the  questions  which  were  thus  involved.  This  book  is  the  result  of  that 
precaution.  It  contains  an  introduction  bearing  upon  the  question  of 
orthodoxy ;  a  statement  of  the  facts  and  incidents  which  led  to  this  legal 
discussion  of  the  question ;  the  pleadings  in  the  case,  so  far  as  they  are 
necessary  to  understand  the  issue  involved,  written  by  the  editor;  a 
verbatim  report  of  the  testimony  given  (which  occupied  two  whole  days), 
reported  by  George  A.  Yopst ;  the  rinding  of  the  court,  etc.;  to  which  is 

w 


t>  Preface. 

appended  an  argument  deduced  from  the  evidence,  and  which  would  have 
been  a  part  of  the  argument  before  the  jury,  if  it  had  been  permitted 
to  go  that  far,  by  W.  D.  Owen,  one  of  the  attornies  who  had  the  special 
charge  of  this  issue. 

It  is  believed  that  true  Bible  orthodoxy  will  be  materially  helped  by 
the  publication  of  this  book;  and,  if  this  should  be  realized,  it  then  be- 
comes a  work  of  philanthropy,  for  whatever  will  assist  men  to  place  them- 
selves in  such  relations  as  will  secure  to  them  the  blessings  of  the  Gospel 
of  Christ,  is  a  work  of  love  to  men.  It  is  thus,  as  a  work  of  philanthropy, 
as  a  means  of  bringing  uncorrupt  Bible  Christianity  to  the  attention  of 
men,  and  as  a  persuading  power  to  induce  men  to  place  themselves  within 
the  range  of  the  Gospel  promises  that  they  may  receive  the  Gospel  bless- 
ings, that  this  book  is  committed  to  the  public. 

J.  H.  E. 

LIGONIER,  Ind.,  October,  1883. 


IN   THE 

CIVIL  COURTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

This  book  is  unique  for  the  reason  that  it  presents  certain  great  issues 
in  a  way  never  before  recorded. 

The  various  fields  of  literature  are  well  occupied  with  works  of 
greater  or  less  merit ;  and  new  books  are  appearing  like  spears  of  grass 
in  the  spring-time  for  number,  giving  new  discussions  of  old  themes,  and 
recording  investigations  upon  the  borders  of  the  still  unknown.  A  dimi- 
nution of  these  may  not  to  be  looked  for,  since  the  literary  ax  and  saw,  pick 
and  spade,  drill  and  blast,  shovel  and  dredge  are  being  used  with  tireless  in- 
dustry to  construct  new  highways  for  human  thought  which  are  to  lead 
into  the  golden  lands  of  undiscovered  wisdom;  and  the  rapid  pen,  the 
running  writer,  and  the  lightning  press  are  all  being  used  to  bring  the  re- 
sults of  this  labor  to  the  knowledge  of  the  great  masses  of  men.  The  rea- 
son for  this  teeming  flood  of  books,  no  doubt,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  there  is  an  insatiable  maw  of  a  hungering  public  to  be  filled. 

Books  are  to  be  found  in  all  the  fields  of  human  thought,  in  so  far  as 
they  have  been  cultivated.  Science  and  phrlosophy,  history  and  romance, 
biography  and  fiction,  pure  reason  and  lofty  poetry,  religion  and  irreligion 
etc.,  etc.,  and  these  have  been  called  out  under  a  variety  of  circumstances. 
These  fields  have  been  gone  over  again  and  again,  in  a  the  <a,nd  ways,  and 
many  kaleidoscopic  combinations  have  been  produced,  \j^  h  for  the  in- 
struction and  amusement  of  men,  and  it  would  seem  that  r  othing  new  in 
the  way  of  producing  literature  could  arise ;  but  among  these  vast  pro- 
ductions and  the  variety  of  ways  by  which  the  field  of  'uerature  has  been 

7 


8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

hitherto  occupied,  there  has  arisen  a  new  way,  unique  in  itself,  at  least  so 
far  as  America  is  concerned,  by  which  to  present  to  thoughtful  men  the 
great  question  of  religious  orthodoxy.  This  book  has  been  thus  produced, 
and  it  is  the  outgrowth  of  one  of  those  fortuitous  events  which  arise  in 
the  history  of  men — no  one  planned  it,  no  one  intended  it,  and  yet  it  came. 

The  political  orator  on  the  stump  in  this  country  delights  to  run  his 
fingers  over  the  musical  strings  of  freedom,  for  he  knows  that  it  will  find  a 
warm  response  in  the  heart  of  the  freedom-loving  American  who  delights 
to  boast  of  his  country  as  being  the  home  of  liberty,  both  political  and  re- 
ligious. This  American  is  made  to  exult  in  the  fact  that  "every  man  can 
worship  God,  or  not,  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,"  the 
Constitution  of  his  country  determining  this  in  that  it  provides  that  "Con- 
gress shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibit- 
ing the  free  exercise  thereof."  Thus  it  is  proclaimed  to  the  world  that,  in 
America  at  least,  there  can  be  no  orthodox  religion  by  virtue  of  legal  en- 
actments, laws  passed  under  the  forms  of  parliamentary  authority ;  that  is, 
there  can  be  no  church  whose  organization,  doctrine,  forms,  rites,  and  cer- 
emonies are  made  right,  or  orthodox,  by  parliamentry  enactment.  If  there 
is  to  be  an  orthodox  religion  in  this  country,  therefore,  it  must  be  so  from 
other  considerations  than  this. 

Under  the  powerful  influence  of  this  freedom  in  religious  thought, 
which  finds  its  bulwark  of  strength  thus  wrought  into  the  Constitu- 
tion, there  has  grown  up  in  America  a  very  strong  indifference  to 
what  is  called  orthodoxy,  and  a  like  disregard  of  what  is  styled  hetero- 
doxy, in  some  quarters.  These  terms  have  been  bandied  a  good  deal,  yet 
they  have  been  applied  to  things  in  an  indiscriminate  way,  having  no  defi- 
nite longitude  and  latitude,  meaning  in  the  mind  and  use  of  one  man  one 
thing,  and  in  the  mind  and  use  of  another  something  else.  This  state  of 
affairs  has  been  tersely  stated  by  another  in  the  following  way:  "Ortho- 
doxy is  my  'doxy,'  and  heterodoxy  is  your  'doxy.'"  These  terms,  there- 
fore, have  been  made  to  express  the  mine  and  thine  in  religion,  to  a  very 
large  extent.  And  while  this  is  true,  it  has  nevertheless  been  felt  that 
there  is  something  which  ought  to  be  recognized  and  regarded  as  orthodox, 
while  its  opposite  should  be  deemed  heterodox.  The  trouble  has  been  all  the 
time  to  find  an  authority  with  powers  sufficent  to  define  these  conceptions 
with  such  precision  and  correctness  as  to  definitely  designate  the  one  and  the 
other  so  as  to  command  the  respect  and  acquiescence  of  all  parties.  None 
of  the  great  religious  bodies  could  assume  to  do  this ;  for,  when  any  one  of 
them  would  set  up  its  own  peculiarities  as  the  standard  of  orthodoxy,  it 
was  sure  to  be  met  with  a  rebellion  on  the  part  of  all  others,  because  their 
peculiarities  are  just  as  worthy  of  such  designation,  and  each  party  would 
choose  to  stand  by  its  own.  From  these  causes,  there  is  now  no  well-de- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  p 

fined  idea  of  what  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy  are,  the  whole  thing  being  a 
kind  of  kaleidoscopic  combination  which  takes  form  and  color  from  the 
particular  position  from  which  it  is  viewed.  All  along  the  line  of  religious 
adherents,  from  the  hyper-Calvinistic  predestinarian,  who  believes  that  God 
from  all  eternity  irrevocably  decreed  that  a  certain  portion  of  angels  and 
men  should  be  ordained  unto  everlasting  life,  and  the  other  portion  to 
eternal  death,  and  that  these  are  so  definitely  fixed  that  they,  neither  one, 
can  be  increased  or  diminished,  to  the  super-Universalist  who  safely  en- 
sconces all  mankind  within  the  battlements  of  eternal  blessedness,  there 
rings  out  this  resonant  word,  "orthodox."  But  what  it  means  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Calvinistic  predestinarian,  is  not  what  it  means  in  the  mouth 
of  the  liberal  Universalist,  and  so  along  the  whole  line. 

Then  what  is  true  orthodoxy  ?  This  book,  with  the  aid  of  those 
things  which  enter  into  the  administration  of  civil  law,  would  fain  be  serv- 
iceable in  answering  this  question.  One  thing  is  true :  the  reader  will  find, 
as  he  passes  through  its  pages,  that  the  decisions  neither  of  kings,  nor  popes, 
nor  councils,  nor  any  other  human  authority  which  has  sought  to  establish 
dogmata  for  the  Christian  world,  have  been  invoked.  The  influence  which 
these  have  had,  deleterious  and  disastrous,  may  be  seen  in  the  long  line  of 
events  which  have  succeeded  the  culmination  of  the  contentions  of  Alex- 
ander and  Arius  of  Alexandria,  in  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  in 
Bythinia,  A.  D.  325,  until  the  present  time.  If  history  establishes  a  single 
thing,  it  is  this:  Religious  orthodoxy  can  not  be  established  by  the  decrees 
of  kings,  popes,  synods,  councils,  or  by  any  other  human  authority. 

To  set  this  truth  more  prominently  before  the  mind  of  the  reader,  let 
him  note  the  following  facts :  The  Council  of  Nice  was  composed  of  com- 
plaining and  angry  bishops,  bishops  jealous  of  and  bitter  against  one  another, 
and  whom  it  required  all  the  skill  and  authority  of  Constantine  to  control; 
but  the  emperor  did  finally  succeed  in  restoring  them  to  some  kind  of 
temper,  so  that  they  set  about  devising  an  orthodox  creed.  Following  is  a 
summary  of  the  creed  that,  under  these  circumstances,  they  devised  and 
which  was  immediately,  by  all  the  imperial  authority  of  Constantine, 
pushed  to  the  front  as  the  only  standard  of  orthodox  faith : 

"  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and 
invisible:  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten ;  begotten 
of  the  Father,  that  is,  of  the  substance  of  the  Father ;  God  of  God ;  Light  of  Light ; 
true  God  of  true  God ;  begotten,  not  made  ;  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  by  whom 
all  things  were  made — things  in  heaven  ;md  things  on  earth  ;  who,  for  us  men,  and  for 
our  salvation,  came  down  and  was  incarnate,  and  became  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again 
the  third  day,  and  ascended  into  the  heavens,  and  comes  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead:  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  the  catholic  and  apostolic  church  doth  anathe- 
matize those  persons  who  say,  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  not ;  that 
he  was  not  before  he  was  born  ;  that  he  was  made  of  nothinc,  or  of  another  substance 
or  being  ;  or  that  he  is  created,  or  changeable,  or  convertible  " 


io  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

This  creed  was  not  only  set  up  as  the  standard  of  orthodox  faith  at  the 
time,  but  it  was  made,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  law  of  life  and  death;  for 
Constantine  issued  an  edict  banishing  Arius  to  Illyricum,  ordering  that  his 
followers  shculd  be  called  Porphyrians,  ordaining  that  the  books  written 
by  them  should  be  burnt,  that  there  be  no  vestige  of  their  doctrine  left ; 
and,  to  complete  the  climax,  enjoining  "  that  if  any  one  shall  be  found  to 
have  concealed  any  writing  composed  by  Arius,  and  shall  not  immediately 
bring  it  and  consume  it  in  the  fire,  death  shall  be  his  punishment ;  for  as 
soon  as  he  is  taken  in  his  crime,  he  shall  suffer  a  capital  punishment." 
Thus,  steadied  in  its  pose  before  the  world  by  the  strong  arm  of  the  impe- 
rial government,  was  this  human  standard  of  religious  faith  set  up. 

But  what  were  the  results  which  this  step,  headed  by  the  Emperor 
Constantine,  effected  as  related  to  orthodoxy?  Another  hand  has  very  fit- 
tingly described  these  results : 

"  The  Scriptures  were  now  no  longer  the  standard  of  Christian  faith.  What  was 
orthodox,  and  what  heterodox,  was,  henceforward,  to  be  determined  by  the  decisions 
of  the  fathers  and  councils ;  and  religion  propagated,  not  by  the  apostolic  methods  of 
persuasion,  accompanied  with  the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ,  but  by  imperial 
edicts  and  decrees;  nor  were  gainsayers  to  be  brought  to  conviction  by  the  simple 
weapons  of  reason  and  Scriptures,  but  persecuted  and  destroyed.  ItV:an  not  surprise 
us,  if,  after  this,  we  find  a  continual  fluctuation  of  the  public  faith,  just  as  the  prevail- 
ing party  obtained  the  imperial  authority  to  support  them;  or  that  we  should  meet 
with  little  else  in  ecclesiastical  history  than  violence  and  cruelties,  committed  by  men 
who  had  fully  departed  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Christian  doctrine  and  profession — 
men  enslaved  to  avarice  and  ambition,  and  carried  away  with  views  of  temporal  grand- 
eur, high  preferments  and  large  revenues." — (Jones'  Church  History,  p.  139.) 

The  decision  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  though  it  was  the  judgment  of  the 
bishops  present  against  Arius  and  his  doctrine  expressed  by  the  vote  of  a 
large  majority  of  them,  and  though  it  was  sustained  by  the  edicts  and  de- 
crees of  Constantine,  did  not  settle  the  controversy  which  had  arisen  be- 
tween Alexander  and  Arius  over  the  sonship  of  Christ.  It  is  true  that  the 
doctrine  of  Arius  had  been  condemned  by  a  large  majority,  that  he  himself 
had  been  banished  by  the  edict  of  the  emperor,  that  his  books  were  or- 
dered to  be  burned,  that  his  followers  were  compelled  to  assent  to  the 
Nicene  confession  of  faith,  and  that  death  had  been  pronounced  against  all 
who  should  conceal  his  works — all  this  is  true ;  but  persecuting  edicts, 
whether  originating  with  kings,  emperors,  councils,  or  popes,  can  not  be 
executed  in  the  domain  of  human  thought,  and  scarcely  can  they  be  made 
to  restrain  the  tongue  and  lips.  However,  this  trinity  question  was  as 
effectually  settled  by  this  decree  of  the  Council  of  Nice  as  it  is  possible  to 
settle  any  like  question  by  such  means;  for,  it  had  all  the  authority  of  the 
council  itself,  it  was  backed  by  all  the  authority  of  the  imperial  govern- 
ment, and  it  had  the  confirmation  of  the  bishop,  or  pope,  of  Rome.  As 


Our  OrtJiodoxy  In  the  Civil  Courts.  n 

soon  as  the  decrees  and  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nice  were  written  out 
they  were  sent  to  Sylvester,  bishop  of  Rome,  by  whom,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  bishops  in  the  thirteenth  Council  of  Rome,  they  were  con- 
firmed in  the  following  words: 

"  We  confirm,  with  our  mouth,  that  which  has  been  decreed  at  Nice,  a  city  of 
Bythinia,  by  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  holy  bishops,  for  the  good  of  the  catholic 
and  apostolic  church,  mother  of  the  faithful.  We  anathematize  all  those  who  shall  dare 
to  contradict  the  decrees  of  the  great  and  holy  council,  which  was  assembled  at  Nice, 
in  the  presence  of  that  most  pious  and  venerable  prince,  the  Emperor  Constantine." — 
(Maimburg's  History  of  Arianisnt,  Vol.  I.,  p.  48.) 

Thus  was  this  dogma  made  orthodox  by  council,  emperor,  and  pope, 
and  yet  but  thirty  years  elapse  before  the  shoe  is  on  the  other  foot ;  for 
Constantius,  son  of  Constantine,  and  the  synods  of  Aries  and  Milan  con- 
demn Athanasius,  the  strongest  supporter  of  Alexander  in  the  Council  of 
Nice  and  the  representative  of  the  Nicene  dogma,  and  adopted  the  Arian 
decrees.  So,  in  the  short  space  of  thirty  years,  such  a  change  of  opinion 
was  wrought  that  what  was  declared  orthodox  by  the  Council  of  Nice  in 
325,  was  condemned  as  heterodox  by  the  synod  of  Aries  in  353,  and  by  the 
synod  of  Milan  in  355.  What  was  pronounced  heterdox  at  Nice  was  de- 
clared orthodox  at  Milan. 

Now,  from  the  historical  point  of  view,  who  can  tell  whether  Arianism 
is  heterodox  or  orthodox?  it  having  been  declared  both  by  like  authorities, 
and  having  been  crushed  and  sustained  by  like  imperial  powers.  And 
thus — may  it  not  be  truthfully  affirmed  ? — is  the  whole  history  of  the  ortho- 
dox controversies  down  through  the  ages,  including  the  rise  of  all  those 
so-called  churches  which  have  their  organizations  based  upon  the  deduc- 
tions and  conclusions  of  human  assemblies,  councils,  etc.,  ascertained,  as 
were  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nice  and  of  the  synods  of  Aries  and 
Milan,  by  a  vote. 

The  impossibility  of  settling  the  question  of  orthodoxy  by  such  means 
as  those  noted  above,  in  the  light  of  the  historic  attempts,  is  apparent,  and 
there  is  an  inconsistency  that  obtrudes  itself  along  with  the  impossibility 
which  it  would  seem  ought  to  have  deterred  from  the  attempts,  but  it  did 
not.  Yet  inconsistency  does  not  belong  alone  to  the  ages  past,  by  any 
means.  If  we  disturb  the  curtains  so  as  to  get  but  a  glimpse  of  things 
as  they  are  being  played  on  the  present  stage  of  action,  the  same  thing 
will  appear.  Above  the  clashings  of  unreconciled  and  discordant  factions 
and  sects,  if  one  will  turn  the  attentive  ear,  two  musical  sounds — "evan- 
gelical" and  "orthodox" — may  be  heard  rising  like  the  siren's  song.  To 
some  extent,  by  their  musical  cadences,  they  overcome  the  discordant  notes 
which  are  continually  being  injected  into  the  song  which  Christendom 
sings  before  the  world,  but  they  will  never  cover  up  all  the  inconsistencies 


12  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tJie  Civil  Courts. 

which  obtrude  themselves  from  the  popular  notions  of  orthodoxy.  By 
some  kind  of  legerdemain,  in  which  the  secret  manipulations  are  yet  un- 
discovered, many  of  the  great  religious  bodies  have,  tacitly  at  least,  con- 
sented to  treat  one  another  as  orthodox — upon  what  principle  it  is  hard  to 
tell,  for  there  is  scarcely  a  principle  which  has  found  its  way  into  their  va- 
rious formulated  creeds  but  that,  in  some  particular,  is  contradicted  by  some 
member  of  this  so-called  orthodox  fraternity.  It  can  not  be  that  they  are 
orthodox  upon  a  series  of  contradicted  principles.  It  may  be  that  the  only 
basis  of  a  true  orthodoxy  will  be  found  in  that  position  taken  by  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  which  has  been  developed  in  the  trial  of  which  this  book 
gives  an  account.  But  to  the  inconsistency  of  the  popular,  so-called,  or- 
thodoxy. In  the  practical  application  of  this  orthodoxy,  which  has  so  in- 
explicably made  its  appearance  among  religious  denominations,  there  ap- 
pears one  of  those  ridiculous  inconsistencies  which  have  burdened  the 
entire  course  of  ecclesiastical  history  from  the  Council  of  Nice  until  how. 
It  will  appear  from  the  following  case,  as  an  illustration :  Not  long  since, 
Dr.  W.  II.  Thomas,  one  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  pastors  of  Chicago, 
a  man  noted  for  his  ability  and  consistent  Christian  life,  was  arraigned  be- 
fore the  authorities  of  that  Church  on  a  charge  of  heterodoxy.  In  the 
trial  which  succeeded,  these  authorities  found  the  charge  sustained,  and 
because  of  this  fact  the  relation  which  had  been  sustained  between  Dr. 
Thomas  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  dissolved  by  author- 
ity of  the  Church.  The  whole  Methodist  fraternity  united  in  proclaiming 
Dr.  Thomas  as  heterodox,  and  hence  unworthy  of  its  communion.  Now, 
in  the  course  of  events — and  the  contingency  which  I  now  mention  is  not 
at  all  improbable — Dr.  Thomas  may  find  it  both  agreeable  and  acceptable 
to  connect  himself  with  a  Congregational  church.  Now,  should  he  «lo 
this,  because  the  Congregational  Church  is  regarded  by  the  Methodists  as 
an  orthodox  Church,  the  Methodist  Church  fraternity  would  be  under  the 
necessity  of  hailing,  and  associating  with,  as  orthodox,  the  same  Dr. 
Thomas,  unchanged  in  principle,  whom  they  had  driven  from  their  com- 
munion as  heterodox.  And  the  same  thing  may  be  jaid  of  Dr.  Swing  and 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  If  the  Methodists  were  not  to  thus  receive  Dr. 
Thomas,  and  the  FVesbyterians  Dr.  Swing,  then,  to  be  consistent,  they 
must  not  slop  until  i-ach  one  in  the  whole  round  of  so  called  orthodox 
churches  has  been  thus  struck,  for  each  one  of  them  is  liable  to  be  placed 
in  precisely  the  same  circumstances.  Let  this  proceed,  and  it  is  easy  to 
be  seen  that  there  will  be  as  many  standards  of  orthodoxy  in  the  end,  and 
that  is  the  real  fact  now,  as  there  have  been  repudiations,  and  we  come 
right  back  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  which  orthodoxy  is  the  tnine  and 
heterodoxy  is  the  thine  in  religion.  This  must  ensue,  or  Christendom 
remain  filled,  as  it  is  now  under  the  regime  of  a  tacitly-consenting  ortho. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  IJ 

doxy,  with  the  jargon  of  inconsistency.  From  all  this  it  is  evident 
that  the  question  of  orthodoxy  can  not  be  settled  by  this  reciprocal  ac- 
ceptance of  the  several  churches,  the  one  of  the  other.  If  it  is  to  be  set- 
tled at  all,  it  must  be  done  by  some  other  means  and  upon  some  other  basis 
than  this. 

The  etymology  of  the  word  "orthodox"  will  give  some  aid  in  deter- 
mining the  scope  of  its  meaning,  and  assigning  to  it  a  definite  longitude 
and  latitude.  This,  as  given  by  Webster,  is  as  follows:  "Gr.  op86So(ot  (or- 
(koJoxos),  from  opflos  (orthos),  right,  true,  and  Sofa  (doxa),  opinion,  from 
SuKtly  (dokeiri),  to  think."  The  word,  therefore,  means  to  think  right,  or 
to  have  a  correct  opinion,  and  this  can  never  be  determined  with  authority 
by  any  assembly  of  men,  be  they  never  so  learned,  and  wise,  and  good ;  for 
the  one  who  has  the  ability  to  think  right,  and  therefore  to  obtain  a  correct 
opinion  of  any  subject  of  disputation,  may  be,  in  the  possibilities  of  human 
action,  confronted  with  the  whole  herd  of  learned,  and  wise,  and  good 
men,  and  a  majority  vote  in  this  case  would  make  the  wrong  right,  and  the 
right  wrong.  In  this  case  the  lone  man  is  right  and  the  multitude  wrong. 
Galileo  vs.  the  priesthood  of  the  Catholic  Church,  is  a  case  in  point.  Gal- 
ileo taught  the  stability  of  the  sun  and  the  earth's  motion,  contrary  to  the 
priestly  conception  of  these  things.  For  this  he  was  summoned  to  Rome 
and  compelled  to  make  an  abjuration  of  his  teachings.  "Clad  in  sack- 
cloth and  kneeling,"  he  swore  upon  the  Gospels  never  again  to  teach  the 
earth's  motion  and  the  sun's  stability ;  he  declared  his  detestation  of  the 
proscribed  opinions,  and  promised  to  perform  the  penance  laid  upon  him. 
Then  rising  from  the  ground,  he  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  in  an  undertone : 
"  E  pur  a  muowe" — it  does  move  for  all  that;  and  the  universal  teaching  of 
science  to-day  shows  that  the  lone  Galileo  was  right,  and  the  combined 
Roman  priesthood  was  wrong. 

From  what  has  now  been  said  it  will  appear  that  a  vote,  no  difference 
how  unanimous  it  may  be,  can  not  change  the  status  of  an  opinion — can 
not  make  a  right  opinion  wrong,  or  a  wrong  opinion  right. 

To  secure  a  genuine  orthodoxy  in  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  there  must 
be  made  a  movement  backward  beyond  the  Council  of  Nice  to  the  apostolic, 
and  immediately  subsequent,  times  when  the  Scriptures  were  allowed  to  set 
forth  their  own  orthodoxy,  their  own  principles  of  right  and  truth.  The 
Scriptures  are  better  able  to  set  forth  those  facts  and  principles  which  are 
connected  with  the  redemption  and  salvation  of  men  than  any  other 
agency,  especially  such  a  one  as  fluctuates  and  is  under  so  many  caprices  as 
the  human  judgment,  because  they  have  been  set  forth  under  a  divine  in- 
spiration. "The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,"  be- 
comes, therefore,  the  only  standard  of  Christian  orthodoxy.  Every  state- 
ment of  the  Bible  is  an  orthodox  statement.  This  covers  a  wide  field,  for 


/  j.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

the  Bible  makes  statements  upon  many  subjects.  In  interpreting  these 
statements  there  may  be  a  wide  diversity  of  opinion,  and  it  is  to  be  looked 
for  that  there  will  be  a  want  of  unanimity  among  the  readers  and  students 
of  the  Bible  upon  its  entire  range  of  teaching;  and  if  this  unanimity 
is  to  be  insisted  upon  before  there  can  be  a  recognized  orthodoxy,  then  it 
may  be  safely  affirmed  that  there  never  will  be  a  perfect  Bible  orthodoxy 
among  men.  But  this  is  not  necessary,  for  the  principle  of  orthodoxy  is 
applied  among  men  only  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  conditions  of  a 
partial  or  complete  fellowship  among  them ;  and,  to  determine  these  con- 
ditions for  a  Bible  fellowship,  only  those  statements  which  the  Scriptures 
make  necessary  to  secure  the  salvation  and  redemption  promised  in  the 
gospel  ought  to  be  taken.  A  little  analytical  work  will  enable  any  one  to 
make  the  discovery  that  these  statements  naturally  fall  into  line  in  two 
sections:  I.  Those  things  which  the  Scriptures  make  necessary  to  take 
a  man  from  the  world  into  the  Church  of  Christ,  viz.,  faith  in  the  great  ob- 
jects of  Scripture  belief,  a  repentance,  or  turning  to  a  reformation  of  life,  a 
confession  of  Christ  before  men,  and  a  baptism  into  the  trinity  of  adorable 
names,  on  a  genuine  conformity  to  which  the  scriptures  promise  a  salvation 
from  the  sins  that  are  past,  and  an  introduction  into  the  divine  fellowship 
of  the  church.  2.  Those  things  which  the  Scriptures  make  necessary, 
after  a  man  is  in  the  church,  to  keep  him  there  as  long  as  he  shall  live, 
viz.,  prayer,  the  holy  service  of  worship,  and  the  acts  of  a  fraternal,  philan- 
thropic and  pious  life  by  which  an  exalted  manhood  will  be  reached,  and  an 
everlasting  salvation  secured.  These,  and  these  only,  it  is  believed,  ought 
to  be  insisted  upon  in  determining  the  conditions  of  the  fellowship  which  is 
to  subsist  between  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  the  church — the  things  which  the 
Scriptures  make  necessary  to  salvation  as  related  to  the  remission  of  sins  in 
this  life,  and  the  final  great  redemption  in  the  life  to  come;  under  no  cir- 
cumstances ought  these  conditions  be  made  to  embrace  the  things  which 
are  the  outcome  of  human  cogitation  and  speculation,  which  form  so  large 
a  part  of  that  which  is  technically  called  "scholastic  theology,"  for  these 
things  may  not  only  be  wrong,  as  indicated  above,  but  their  acceptance  or 
rejection  will  in  no  way  assure  or  jeopardize  one's  salvation  or  final  condi- 
tion. For  instance:  as  referred  to  above,  it  has  been  taught  that  God, 
by  His  own  sovereign  decree,  has  predestinated  some  men  and  angels  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  foreordained  the  remainder  unto  everlasting  death, 
and  that  the  number  of  these  angels  and  men  is  so  certain  and  definite 
that  it  can  not  be  either  increased  or  diminished.  Now,  if  this  be  true  as 
related  to  individual  men  and  angels,  it  makes  no  kind  of  difference 
whether  it  is  accepted  or  rejected,  because  this  acceptance  or  rejection  can 
have  nothing  to  do  in  the  least  in  determining  the  final  condition,  for  the 
reason  that  that  condition  has  been  unalterably  fixed  by  the  sovereign  act 


Our  OrtJwdoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  15 

of  God  from  all  eternity,  according  to  the  dogma ;  and,  if  it  should  turn 
out  that  this  dogma  is  true,  there  will,  without  doubt,  be  among  that 
number  of  men  foreordained  unto  everlasting  life,  and  who  because  of  that 
foreordination  became  the  recipients  of  everlasting  life,  both  those  who 
accept  it  and  those  who  reject  it,  thus  showing  that  their  everlasting  life 
was  in  no  way  assured  or  jeopardized  by  their  acceptance  or  rejection  of 
this  dogma.  But  it  is  not  so  with  those  things  which  the  Scriptures  make 
necessary  unto  salvation.  For  instance:  The  Saviour  commands  His  dis- 
ciples to  make  known  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  assuring  them  that 
those  who  believe  it  and  are  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  that  those  who  be- 
lieve it  not  shall  be  damned.  (Mark  xvi.  15,  16.)  Thus  the  salvation  of 
men  is  made  contingent  upon  their  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  gospel. 
Not  so  with  the  dogmata  of  scholastic  theology,  %vhich  involve  the  specula- 
tions concerning  the  trinity,  the  sovereign  decree  of  God,  hereditary  total 
depravity,  etc.,  etc.  The  Christian  Church,  the  body  of  people  whose  or- 
thodoxy was  called  in  question  in  the  trial  rehearsed  in  this  book,  has 
never  assigned  these  dogmata  a  higher  place  than  that  of  speculation  and 
opinion,  and  has  insisted  that  they  should  never  be  made  the  criteria 
of  orthodoxy,  but  that  in  regard  to  them  there  ought  to  be  indulged  the 
widest  latitude.  While  the  Church  would  be  thus  liberal  in  these  matters 
of  opinion,  it  permits  no  latitude  in  those  things  which  the  Scriptures 
make  necessary  to  salvation;  as  to  those  things  it  has  uncompromisingly 
insisted  that  all  men  shall  accept  them  according  to  the  Bible  teaching. 
It  has  done  this,  not  simply  to  build  up  an  organization  of  men,  but  that 
the  salvation  of  Christ  shall  be  assured  to  men  under  the  promises  of  the 
gospel;  and  they  insist  that  the  term  "orthodox,"  used  as  a  term  to  desig- 
nate the  conditions  of  fellowship  among  the  disciples  of  Christ,  should  not 
be  applied  to  any  thing  which  the  Scriptures  do  not  make  a  condition  in 
the  salvation  of  men — their  salvation  from  past  and  present  sin,  and  their 
salvation  from  an  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord 
and  the  glory  of  His  power;  and  hence,  that  no  body  of  men  is  orthodox, 
in  the  Christian  application  of  that  term,  which  does  not  accept  all  these 
Scriptural  conditions,  no  difference  how  tenaciously  the  dogmas  of 
speculation,  or  even  the  revelations  of  Scripture  upon  other  things,  are 
held. 

Now,  to  get  before  the  minds  of  the  people  these  Scriptural  condi- 
tions, and  thus  to  set  forth  the  only  reasonable  orthodoxy,  various  means 
have  been  resorted  to  and  used :  the  song  faculty  has  been  drawn  upon, 
the  sacred  desk  and  public  platform  have  been  diligently  used,  the  arena 
of  belligerent  polemics  has  been  sought,  the  powerful  agencies  of  the  pen 
and  press  have  been  brought  into  requisition,  etc.,  etc.;  but  until  now  the 
civil  courts  in  this  country  have  never  been  invoked  to  aid  in  determining 


16  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

this  difficult  problem.  This  book  elucidates  this  subject  by  giving  those 
things  which  have  been  evolved  under  the  judicial  processes  of  a  circuit 
court,  and  the  sanctities  of  solemn  oath.  It  is  believed  that  these  will  give 
both  weight  to  its  predominant  statements,  and  interest  in  its  perusal.  The 
reader  is  now  commended  to  the  perusal  of  the  book  itself,  which  has 
been  produced  in  so  remarkable  a  manner,  and  treats  this  difficult  sub- 
ject in  so  unique  a  way. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   FACTS   AND    INCIDENTS    WHICH    LED   TO   THE  TRIAL. 

"  O,  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  the  knowledge 
of  God!  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  tracing 
out!"  The  Most  High  reigns  in  the  armies  above,  and  giveth  the  king- 
doms of  men  to  whon.soever  He  will ;  even  a  sparrow  falls  not  .o  the 
ground  without  His  notice.  Many  historical  events  are  wholly  inexplica- 
ble except  on  the  theory  that  "there's  a  divinity  which  shapes  our  ends, 
rough-hew  them  how  we  will."  That  the  volition  of  men  is  a  potential  factor 
in  the  production  of  human  results,  must  not  be  overlooked ;  but  to  elim- 
inate the  superintendency  of  the  divine  in  the  affairs  of  men,  is  to  put  the 
problem  of  human  life  forever  beyond  solution.  In  a  thousand  ways  this 
divine  superintendency  may  be  seen,  not  simply  in  the  assertion  of  the 
awful  majesty  of  God  in  a  brilliant  display  of  His  power,  but  in  the  al- 
most impreceptible  handling  of  what  may  appear  to  be  the  minor  things  of 
human  life  and  activity,  so  as  to  bring  about  certain  and  definite  results. 
Men,  with  the  limited  knowledge-power  which  they  possess,  can  manipu- 
late things  so  as  to  produce  results  previously  determined  upon  :  why  not 
God,  the  all-wise  and  omnipotent  One?  The  problem  of  human  existence 
is  too  profound  for  finite  thought  and  knowledge.  It  must,  of  necessity, 
be  relegated  to  the  infinite  Mind,  by  which,  notwithstanding  the  intricacies 
which  are  produced  through  the  power  of  volition,  the  hight  and  purpose 
of  its  possibilities  will  be  attained  ;  and  in  the  consummation  of  these  may 
be  observed,  probably,  the  most  consummate  Divine  wisdom.  At  least, 
the  drama  of  human  life,  from  the  time  that  Adam  bathed  himself  in  the 
light  of  the  cherubim's  flaming  sword,  as  he  passed  outward  over  the 
threshold  of  Eden,  to  the  time  when  another  angel,  standing  with  his 
feet  as  pillars  of  fire  on  land  and  on  sea,  rainbow-crowned,  suffusing  earth 
and  deep  with  the  light  of  his  countenance,  with  hand  uplifted  toward 
heaven,  shall  swear  that  time  shall  be  no  more,  is  never  left  for  one  mo- 
ment to  the  haphazard  of  chance  in  the  production  of  effects.  A  Mighty 
One  is  the  Master  of  this  stage;  and  He  brings  about  its  results,  not  by 
the  exercise  of  irresistible  power,  but  by  the  control  of  mind  and  volition 
according  to  their  own  laws  of  action.  The  grand  effect  will  be  but  the 
result  of  the  combination  of  the  minor  effects.  In  reaching  the  climax  in 

I? 


i8  Our  Ortliodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

the  drama  of  human  life,  which  will  be  when  the  portals  of  an  everlasting 
life  are  opened  to  men,  the  Great  Master  produces  the  minor  effects  neces- 
sary to  the  grand  consummation  by  bringing  this  and  that  element  together, 
securing  this  and  that  condition,  and  producing  this  and  that  combination ; 
and  all  this,  too,  in  strict  harmony  with  the  principle  known  as  mora^ 
agency  in  men.  Who  will  say  that  the  bringing  together  of  the  elements 
as  they  were  found,  the  securing  of  the  conditions  which  prevailed,  and 
the  producing  of  the  combinations  which  existed  in  that  series  of  events 
which  resulted  in  the  issue  narrated  in  this  book,  is  not  the  outcome  of  that 
Divine  superintendency  which  is  recognized  in  the  armies  above  and  felt  in 
the  kingdoms  of  men?  If  this  truly  be  the  result  of  such  superintend- 
ency, then,  what  might  otherwise  appear  as  a  mere  unimportant  event — 
which  would  not  be  singled  out  from  a  hundred  other  passing  events — may 
be  big  with  outgrowing  consequences,  consequences  which  may  ramify  all 
the  conditions  and  remodel  the  whole  structure  of  the  religious  world. 
Now,  as  the  following  facts  and  events  are  narrated,  let  the  reader  note  if 
the  hand  of  the  Lord  is  not  in  all  this. 

Ligonier  is  a  sprightly  rural  town  of  two  thousand  five  hundred  in- 
habitants, situated  in  Noble  County,  Indiana.  It  contains  about  the  usual 
number  of  churches  found  in  towns  of  its  size,  and  about  the  usual  per 
cent,  of  religious  people.  Among  the  churches  of  the  town  is  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  which  was  organized  April  26,  1863.  During  its  existence  it 
has  wielded  a  leading  influence  in  the  community,  being  blessed  with  a 
good  degree  of  success,  having  enrolled  in  its  membership  four  hundred 
and  forty-seven  names,  over  two  hundred  of  which  still  remain  on  its  reg- 
ister. The  following  ministers  have  served  the  Church  as  its  pastors: 
Charles  Richmond,  G.  W.  Chapman,  W.  B.  Hendryx,  N.  J.  Aylsworth, 
James  Hadsell,  J.  E.  Harris,  F.  A.  Grant,  R.  S.  Groves,  John  Hurd,  O. 
Ebert,  J.  M.  Monroe  (two  terms),  and  J.  H.  Edwards,  who  is  its  present 
pastor.  The  Church  has  also  enjoyed  the  labors,  on  special  occasions,  of 
J.  H.  Jones,  R.  Faurot,  Wm.  M.  Roe,  John  S.  Sweeney,  O.  A.  Burgess,  L. 
L.  Carpenter,  Ira  J.  Chase,  J.  M.  Van  Horn,  and  others.  Being  filled 
with  the  spirit  of  these  godly  men,  which  is  the  reflex  of  that  spirit  which 
is  received  in  drinking  in  the  truth  of  God,  the  Church  has  striven  to  hold 
forth  the  word  of  life  in  its  purity  and  power  before  the  community  in 
which  it  is;  and  not  only  so,  but  it  has  reached  out  to  the  regions  beyond, 
doing  successful  missionary  work  at  various  points  in  adjacent  communities, 
notably  so  at  Shobe's  school-house,  and  at  Diamond  Lake.  Among  other 
places  thus  occupied  is  Salem  Chapel,  in  the  Haw-Patch. 

The  Haw-Patch  is  a  district  of  country  lying  north  of  Ligonier,  and 
is  noted  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  fertile  expansions  of  country  in 
the  State.  Its  entire  range  of  prospect,  embracing  its  diligently  cultivated 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  ig 

fields,  its  substantial  and  elegant  improvements,  its  flocks  of  improved  and 
thoroughbred  stock,  etc.,  indicates  the  thrift  and  intelligence  of  its  inhabit- 
ants. Perhaps  there  is  no  like  district  of  country  where  all  the  natural 
elements  conspire  to  produce  a  more  prosperous  and  intelligent  commu- 
nity; and  certainly  there  is  no  rural  district  where  there  is  more  of  that 
genteelness,  ,both  in  the  suavity  of  personal  manners  and  the  elegant  ap- 
pointments of  the  home,  which  marks  good  society,  and  more  of  that  out- 
reaching  after  intelligent  culture  which  develops  power,  than  is  found 
here.  The  best  literary  productions  of  the  age,  both  in  the  form  of  books 
and  magazines,  are  found  and  used  in  these  homes.  Progress  and  prosper- 
ity seem  to  have  fixed  their  abode  here. 

In  every  community  there  are  centers  of  attraction  at  which  the  people 
gather  for  their  public  assemblies.  To  provide  for  this  contingency  of  civ- 
ilized society,  Mr.  Conrad  Miller  and  his  wife,  as  far  back  as  May  23, 
1836,  deeded  to  trustees  for  a  nominal  sum  ($1.00),  a  parcel  of  land  to 
be  used,  as  recited  in  the  deed,  fora  "school-house  site,  meeting-house  site 
for  holding  religious  services,  and  for  a  grave-yard  site."  This  place  at 
once  became  the  gathering-point  for  the  various  public  meetings  of  the 
community.  A  school-house  was  built  on  the  ground ;  and  the  Baptists, 
Presbyterians,  Protestant  and  Episcopal  Methodists,  etc.,  used  it  for  their 
religious  gatherings.  On  June  14,  1849,  the  trustees,  Messrs.  Curl  and 
Hosteller,  deeded  ihe  land  lo  the  Protestant  Methodist  Conference,  and 
the  church  in  the  community  set  about  building,  with  the  aid  of  the  people, 
a  meeting-house  upon  it.  Having  done  this,  they,  with  other  religious  de- 
nominations, especially  the  Presbyterians,  used  it  for  religious  services. 
As  the  Protestant  Methodists  had  succeeded  in  gelling  the  starl  in  the  com 
munity,  they  built  up  a  prosperous  congregation,  and  seemed  to  have  se- 
cured the  permanent  lead  in  the  community  as  to  its  religious  operations. 
In  the  mean  time,  however,  some  of  the  pastors  of  the  Christian  Church  in 
Ligonier  paid  the  community  some  desultory  visits,  preaching  as  occasion 
permitted ;  notable  among  these  was  W.  B.  Hendryx,  who  delivered  some 
sermons  which  are  not  forgotlen  even  to  this  day,  and  which  secured 
a  respectful  hearing  and  commanded  a  favorable  judgment  from  the 
community. 

This  slate  of  affairs  substanlially  conlinued  until  i877~'8,  when,  the  old 
house  having  served  the  purpose  of  religious  services  for  a  long  time,  and 
having  fallen  behind  the  onward  progress  and  prosperity  of  the  neighbor- 
hood as  compared  with  the  surrounding  improvements,  an  agitation  was 
begun  which  looked  toward  the  tearing  down  of  this  house  and  the  erec- 
tion of  a  better,  more  elegant  and  commodious  struclure  for  ihis  purpose — 
a  building  more  in  harmony  with  the  thrifty  surroundings. 

At   length   a   meeting   of    the  merr^ers  of  the   Protestant  Methodist 


2O  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Church  was  called,  Ui  make  arrangements  for  this  work.  The  leading 
members  of  the  Church  responded  to  the  call,  and  were  present  at  this 
meeting,  including  the  pastor,  and,  as  the  writer  is  informed,  the  president 
of  the  conference,  too.  At  this  meeting  arrangements  were  made  foi 
building  the  new  house,  by  securing  a  complete  board  of  trustees,  selecting 
a  building  committee,  and  preparing  subscription  papers  upon  which  to 
secure  the  building  fund — these  subscription  papers  being  prepared  and 
written  by  the  pastor  of  the  church,  Mr.  Paxton,  and  put  into  the  hands  ol 
the  building  committee.  The  society  not  being  able  to  build  such  a  house 
as  was  desired,  it  was  concluded  to  make  the  solicitation  of  funds  general ; 
and,  to  secure  the  help  of  the  outside  portion  of  the  community,  the  fol- 
lowing clause  was  inserted  in  the  subscription  papers,  viz. :  "And  said 
house  shall  be  free  to  all  orthodox  denominations  when  not  in  use  by  the 
said  Protestant  Methodist  Church." 

Among  the  active  members  and  helpers  of  the  Methodist  Church  at 
this  time  were  Messrs.  George  K.  Poyser  and  William  A.  King,  both  of 
whom  were  trustees,  and  both  of  whom  were  put  on  the  building  com- 
mittee. Mr.  Poyser  was  made  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  both 
he  and  Mr.  King  were  the  most  active  members  of  the  committee,  securing 
on  their  papers  $2,000  of  the  $2,300  of  subscriptions  obtained,  and  taking 
almost  the  entire  responsibility  of  building — looking  after  material,  con- 
tracting with  the  workmen,  superintending  the  work,  collecting  the  sub- 
scriptions, paying  the  bills,  etc.,  etc.  Their  unselfish  interest  in  the  work 
was  a  matter  of  note  on  all  hands. 

Finally  the  building  was  completed,  and  the  day  of  dedication  was 
announced.  The  day  aniving,  there  was  a  general  gathering  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  with  its  officials,  pastor,  president  of  the  conference,  and 
others,  together  with  the  community  in  general,  to  dedicate  the  house  to 
the  service  for  which  it  was  erected.  There  being  a  deficit  in  the  funds, 
a  subscription  was  taken  up  amounting  to  some  $700  or  $800 — more  than 
enough  to  cover  all  obligations  of  the  committee,  and  to  sufficiently  fur- 
nish the  house.  Thereupon  the  building  committee  turned  the  house  over 
to  those  having  the  dedicatory  services  in  charge;  and  there,  in  the  pres- 
ence and  with  the  full  acquiescence  of  the  church,  its  officers,  pastor,  and 
the  president  of  the  conference,  they  having  full  knowledge  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions,  the  house  was  accepted  from  the  hands  of  the 
building  committee,  and  dedicated  to  its  sacred  service.  Of  the  whole 
amount  of  money  used  in  the  construction  of  the  house,  $1,400  was  obtained 
from  those  not  connected  with  the  Methodist  society. 

The  house,  thus  erected  and  dedicated,  is  a  beautiful  brick  structure, 
of  graceful  proportions,  symmetrical  spire,  and  stained  glass  windows. 
On  the  inside  it  is  neatly  frescoed,  handsomely  seated,  and  otherwise  ele- 
gantly furnished.  Taking  it  all  in  all,  it  is  model  country  church. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  21 

After  the  dedication,  with  the  occupancy  of  this  new  and  elegant 
temple  of  service,  and  the  favorable  surroundings  then  existing,  the  Meth- 
odist Church  entered  upon  what  it  supposed  was  to  be  a  period  of  unex- 
ampled prosperity  in  its  history.  Having  the  sympathy  and  confidence  of 
the  community,  it  ought  to  have  realized  its  anticipations.  But  it  often 
occurs  that  in  seeming  prosperity,  disintegration  does  its  most  desperate 
and  rapid  work.  It  was  so  with  this  society.  Not  very  long  after  the 
completion  of  the  house,  the  conference  sent  to  this  church  a  man  whose 
name  was  A .  Previous  to  his  coming  there  had  been  no  little  dissat- 
isfaction in  the  minds  of  many,  though  probably  not  very  outspoken,  as  to 
the  ability  of  the  men  sent  by  the  conference  to  serve  them.  It  was  felt 
that  for  their  community,  and  with  their  surroundings,  such  as  have  been 
described  above,  they  ought  to  have  men  of  good  ability ;  but  instead  of 
that  the  conference  had  been  sending  them  men,  as  it  has  been  graphically 
stated,  "who  were  just  fresh  from  the  pine  woods  of  the  North."  The 
pertinency  of  this  remark  will  be  appreciated  when  it  is  known  that  this 
church,  though  in  Indiana,  is  attached  to  a  Michigan  conference,  which 

extends  far  to  the  North.  But  with  the  arrival  of  A a  new  element 

of  discord  began  soon  to  show  itself — that  of  the  alleged  immoral  and 
licentious  conduct  of  this  man.  So  definitely  were  the  affirmations  made 
of  him  in  this  respect,  that  a  citation  was  made,  and  he  appeared  before  a 
tribunal  which  investigated  them.  The  evidence  given  in  the  case  was 
considered  so  strong  that  Messrs.  King  and  Poyser,  mentioned  above,  and 
many  others,  were  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  allega- 
tions. The  outcome  of  it  was  that  Mr.  A ceased  his  ministrations  for 

the  church ;  but  at  the  next  session  of  it,  he  carried  the  matter  before  the  con- 
ference. The  result  of  this  appeal  was  that  the  conference  discredited  the 
allegations ;  and  it  not  only  discredited  the  allegations,  but  made  its  action 

emphatic  by  electing  the  said  A president.  So  thoroughly  convinced 

were  Messrs.  King,  Poyser,  Herald,  Davis,  and  others  of  the  community, 
of  the  substantial  truthfulness  of  the  allegations,  having  been  thoroughly 
conversant  with  the  evidence  in  the  case,  that  the  action  of  the  confer- 
ence was  received  by  them  with  the  utmost  disgust.  From  that  time  on 
they  refused  to  have  anything  more  to  do  in  the  affairs  of  the  church,  say- 
ing, that  if  that  was  the  kind  of  religion  the  conference  propose  to  main- 
tain, they  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  in  any  respect ;  and  thus  they 
withdrew  from  its  affiliation  and  support,  both  as  to  financial  aid  and  active 
work. 

Under  a  balk  like  this  many  men  are  inclined  to  abandon  all  interest 
in  the  great  work  of  the  gospel  of  Christ;  for  they  reason  that  if  it  fails 
to  make  better  men  than  this,  it  is  incompetent  to  do  the  great  work  it 
proposes,  not  remembering  that  those  men  whom  it  fails  to  make  better  are 


22  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

not  really  under  its  influence  and  power — it  is  only  an  empty  profession  of 
faith,  or,  if  not  an  empty  profession,  it  is  a  mistaken  conception  as  to  what 
the  gospel  is.  But  it  was  not  so  with  these  men  ;  they  cast  about  them  for 
a  more  exemplary  proclaimer  of  the  gospel ;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  having 
formed  a  favorable  acquaintance  with  J.  M.  Monroe,  then  the  pastor  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  Ligonier,  and  realizing  that  they  had  done  more  for 
the  success  of  the  building  in  the  way  of  assuring  its  erection  than  any 
others;  and  having  acted  in  good  faith  in  respect  to  the  clause  in  the  sub- 
scription papers,cited  above,  giving  the  free  use  of  the  house  to  all  ortho- 
dox denominations ;  and,  believing  therefore  that  they  had  both  a  moral 
and  a  legal  right  to  at  least  a  partial  possession  and  use  of  the  house  whose 
erection  their  own  zeal  and  work  had  secured ,  they  arranged  with  the  said 
J.  M.  Monroe,  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Ligonier,  to  conduct  re- 
ligious services  in  the  house  at  three  o'clock  on  Sunday  afternoons,  an  hour 
which  in  no  way  interfered  with  the  hours  occupied  by  the  Methodist 
Church  in  its  services,  but  which  afforded  many  in  the  community  the  priv- 
ilege of  worship  which  they  would  not  have  otherwise  improved.  These 
appointments  he  continued,  on  alternate  Sunday  afternoons,  as  long  as  he 
remained  pastor  of  the  church  in  Ligonier,  with  at  least  the  tacit  per- 
mission of  all  parties  concerned.  His  pastorate  closed  January  I,  1882, 
and  the  present  pastor  (the  writer)  succeeded  him  in  the  following  April. 
In  the  mean  time  the  church  enjoyed  the  ministrations  of  various  visiting 
brethren  at  different  times;  and  when  it  was  thus  blessed  these  brethren 
visited  Salem  Chapel  also,  and  thus  the  appointments  were  kept  up  through 
the  interval.  This  continued  until  the  pulpit  was  regularly  filled  as  note6 
above ;  the  appointments  were  resumed  on  every  alternate  Sunday  after 
noon,  at  three  o'clock,  under  arrangements  made  between  the  officers  ol 
the  Christian  Church  and  the  parties  at  whose  suggestion  and  invitation 
the  services  were  at  first  begun. 

From  this  resumption  the  services  were  well  attended,  and  with  the 
exception  of  two  or  three  appointments  in  midsummer,  during  wiich  the 
Indiana  Christian  Sunday-school  Association,  and  other  organizations, 
were  in  encampment  at  Island  Park,  near  by,  these  services  improved 
both  in  attendance  and  interest;  and,  as  it  has  been  reported,  the  Method- 
ist services,  though  continued  every  Sunday,  both  morning  and  evening, 
were  on  the  decline  in  both  these  respects.  Under  these  circumstances  it 
would  not  be  unreasonable  to  expect  that  a  little  feeling  of  chagrin,  if  not 
also  of  jealousy,  should  manifest  itself;  and  so  it  did.  This  spirit  at  last 
began  to  clothe  itself  in  such  verbal  forms  as,  "They  have  no  right  to 
come  into  our  territory;"  "We  don't  propose  to  be  undermined,"  etc. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that,  under  these  pretexts — or,  rather,  from  this 
kind  of  food — this  spirit  continued  to  grow  until  it  became  imperious,  it  is 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  23 

but  right  that  the  reader  should  know  something  of  the  character  of  the 
preaching  which  gave  occasion  for  these  upheavals  of  dissatisfaction,  that 
he  may  be  able  to  judge  whether  this  manifestation  of  spirit  was  attributa- 
ble to  the  preaching,  or  was  the  result  of  some  other  cause.  This  can  now 
be  done  only  in  an  imperfect  way.  The  best  that  can  be  done  is  to  sub- 
join a  list  of  subjects  discoursed  upon,  together  with  the  Scripture  motto 
used  in  connection  with  each  theme.  At  this  point  it  will  be  helpful  to 
add  that  the  method  of  polemic  discourse  was  entirely  ignored  in  all  these 
discourses,  reliance  being  placed  in  the  power  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel, 
when  simply  and  tersely  stated,  to  produce  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the 
hearers.  This  indicates  the  manner  of  discourse ;  the  title  of  the  theme 
discussed,  together  with  the  Scripture  motto  used,  will  indicate  the  main 
temper  of  the  thought  advanced.  Following  is  the  list  of  themes : 

1.  "Jesus  Able  to  Save."     Motto:  Hebrews  vii.  25. 

"Wherefore  also  he  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  them  that  draw 
near  unto  God  through  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for 
them." 

2.  "•  What  Think  Ye  of  Christ  ?"     Motto:  Matthew  xxii.  41-43. 

"  Now  while  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together  Jesus  asked  them 
a  question,  saying,  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  whose  son  is  he?  They  say 
unto  him,  The  son  of  David.  He  saith  unto  them,  How  then  doth  David 
in  the  Spirit  call  him  Lord  ?" 

3.  "  God's  Power  unto  Salvation."     Motto:     Romans  i.  16. 

"For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel;  for  it  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth ;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the 
Greek." 

4.  "  Pure  Religion."     Motto:  James  i.  27. 

"  Pure  religion  and  undefiled  before  our  God  and  Father  is  this,  to  visit 
the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself  unspotted 
from  the  world." 

5.  "  The  Issues  of  Life."     Motto  :  Proverbs  iv.  23. 

"  Keep  thy  heart  with  all  diligence;  for  out  of  it  are  the  issues  of 
life." 

6.  "  Firmly  and  Rightly  Planted."     Motto:  Ephesians  v.  6. 

"Let  no  man  deceive  you  with  empty  words;  for  because  of  these 
things  cometh  the  wrath  of  God  upon  the  sons  of  disobedience." 

7.  "The  True  Leadership  of  Men."     Motto:  Isaiah  Iv.  4. 

"  Behold  I  have  given  him  for  a  witness  to  the  people,  a  leader  anfl 
commander  to  the  people." 

8.  "The  Glory  of  the  Church."     Motto:  Psalm  Ixxxvii.  3-6. 
"Glorious  things  are  spoken  of  thee,  O  city  of  God.     I  will  make 

mention  of  Rahab  and  Babylon   to  them  that  know  me :  behold  Philistia, 


24.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

and  Tyre, with  Ethiopia;  this  man  was  born  there.  And  of  Zion  it  shall 
be  said,  This  and  that  man  was  born  in  her:  And  the  Highest  himself 
shall  establish  her.  The  Lord  shall  count,  when  he  writeth  up  the  people, 
that  this  man  was  born  there." 

9.  "The  Authority  of  the  Word  of  Jesus."     Motto:   Mark  xiii.  31. 
"Heaven  and   earth  shall  pass  away:  but  my   words  shall  not  pass 

away." 

10.  "  Debility  and  Accountability  of  Men."    Motto:  Romans  xiv.  12. 
"So  then  each  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God." 

11.  "Authority  of  Jesus  to  Teach."     Motto:  Matthew  vii.  28,  29. 
"And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jesus  had  ended  these  sayings,  the  people 

were  astonished  at  his  doctrine :  for  he  taught  them  as  one  having  author- 
ity, and  not  as  the  scribes." 

12.  "Searching  the  Scriptures."     Motto:  John  v.  39. 

"Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have 
eternal  life:  and  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me." 

13.  "The  New  Creature."     Motto:  II.  Corinthians  v.  17. 
"Wherefore  if   any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature :  the  old 

things  are  passed  away:  behold,  they  are  become  new." 

14.  "The  Manliness  of  Christ."     Motto:  II.  Peter  i.  3. 

"Seeing  that  his  divine  power  hath  granted  unto  us  all  things  that 
pertain  unto  life  and  godliness,  through  the  knowledge  of  him  that  calls 
us  by  his  own  glory  and  virtue." 

15.  "Perfection."     Motto:  Matthew  v.  48. 

"  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is 
perfect." 

16.  "Perfection  of  Conscience."     Motto:  Hebrews  ix.  8-10. 

"The  Holy  Spirit  this  signifying,  that  the  way  into  the  holy  place  hath 
not  yet  been  made  manifest,  while  as  the  first  tabernacle  is  yet  standing ; 
which  is  a  parable  for  the  time  now  present ;  according  to  which  are  offered 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices  that  can  not,  as  touching  the  conscience,  make  the 
worshiper  perfect,  being  only  (with  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings) 
carnal  ordinances,  imposed  until  a  time  of  reformation." 

17.  "The  Beginning  of  Wisdom."     Motto:  Psalm  cxi.  10. 

"The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom:  a  good  under- 
standing have  all  they  that  do  his  commandments:  his  praise  endureth 
forever." 

18.  "The  Son  Born,  a  Saviour."     Motto:  Luke  ii.  10-14. 

"And  the  angel  said  unto  them,  Be  not  afraid :  for  behold  I  bring  you 
good  tidings  of  great  joy  which  shall  be  to  all  people :  for  there  is  born 
to  you  this  day  in  the  city  of  David  a  Saviour,  which  is  Christ  the  Lord." 

19.  "Unity  of  Christ's  Disciples."     Motto:  John  xviir  20,  21. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  2$ 

"  Neither  for  these  only  do  I  pray,  but  for  them  also  that  believe  on 
me  through  their  word ;  that  they  may  all  be  one ;  even  as  thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us :  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  didst  send  me."* 

This  gives  the  whole  line  of  subjects  discussed  from  April,  1882,  to 
January  7,  1883,  and  at  which  this  people  took  alarm.  Was  the  cause  of 
alarm  really  in  this,  or  was  it  in  something  else  ?  Was  it  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  manipulating  the  elements  so  as  to  produce  the  conditions  out  of 
which  should  come  an  unique  discussion  of  the  question  which  has  for  so 
many  centuries  disturbed  all  Christendom,  and  thus  more  effectually  open 
the  way  for  that  unity  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  upon  which  the  conver- 
sion of  the  world  depends,  as  prayed  for  by  the  Saviour?  If  it  can  be 
said  that  "  the  wrath  of  men  shall  praise  the  Lord,"  may  it  not  also  come 
to  pass  that  the  jealousies  of  men  may  be,  by  the  same  hand,  turned  to  a 
similar  account?  It  looks  that  way. 

After  it  was  concluded  by  this  people  that  the  gospel  preached  was  not 
the  gospel  that  was  desired  by  them,  a  difficulty  came  into  view.  It  was 
no  easy  matter  to  break  up  these  services,  which  had  continued  for  from  a 
year  and  a  half  to  two  years,  with  the  tacit  permission  of  all  the  inter- 
ested parties,  and,  moreover,  with  the  agreement  which  the  church  had 
entered  into  with  the  people,  as  set  forth  in  their  subscription  paper,  in  the 
way,  and  at  the  same  time  lay  any  claim  to  the  approval  of  the  commu- 
nity. The  first  move  to  accomplish  this  end  was  a  stratagem.  Falling 
back  upon  their  undisputed  right  to  a  priority  in  the  use  of  the  house,  the 
quarterly  conference,  in  session  on  January  6,  1883,  determined  to  change 
the  "  plan  of  their  appointments."  Accordingly,  on  the  following  day, 
after  the  services  were  begun,  a  paper  was  brought  to  the  pulpit  with  the 
request  that  it  be  read.  At  the  proper  time  the  request  was  complied 
with.  The  paper  proved  to  be  one  prepared  by  the  trustees  of  the  house, 
and  the  pastor  of  the  church,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  conference, 
and  was  a  notice  to  all  parties  associated  together  in  keeping  up  those 
afternoon  appointments,  and  especially  to  the  pastor  of  the  Christian 
Church,  from  the  trustees,  informing  those  parties  that  the  conference  had 
authorized  the  pastor  of  that  church  to  hold  four  or  more  religious  services 
on  each  Sunday  (and  that,  too,  on  a  $403  salary),  giving  the  time  for  three 
of  these  services,  one  of  which  was  to  be  at  half  past  two  o'clock  p.  M. 
(thus  crowding  upon  the  time  of  those  obnoxious  services),  and  authoriz- 
ing the  pastor  to  carry  out  the  conference's  "plan  of  appointments;"  and 
also  a  notice  from  the  pastor,  Rev.  B.  Post,  that  he  proposed  to  carry  out 
his  instructions.  Taken  by  surprise — for  not  an  inkling,  not  a  whisper  of 


*  It  will  be  observed  that  the  above  mottoes  from  the  New  Testament  are  quoted 
from  the  Revised  Version. 


26  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

any  contemplated  movement  of  this  kind  had  reached  the  ears  of  the  of- 
fending minister  before  going  to  his  appointment ;  not  even  the  common 
courtesy  of  the  men  of  the  world,  to  say  nothing  of  the  obligations  of 
Christian  ethics,  to  seek  a  private  consultation  for  the  adjustment  of  mat- 
ters, had  been,  extended  to  him — there  was  no  appointment  left  at  this  time 
for  other  meetings  in  the  future. 

The  matter  being  taken  under  advisement  and  consultation  for  a  day 
or  two,  it  was  determined  to  continue  the  appointments.  So  an  answer 
was  returned  to  the  trustees  and  pastor  of  the  church,  accordingly,  inform- 
ing them  that  their  right  to  the  priority  in  the  use  of  the  house,  and  to 
arrange  their  "plan  of  appointments"  as  best  suited  themselves,  and  the 
convenience  of  their  people,  would  be  respected;  but,  also,  feeling  that 
the  parties  for  whom  the  services  were  being  held  had  a  moral  and  Chris- 
tian right,  to  say  nothing  of  the  legal  right,  to  the  use  of  the  house,  that 
appointments  would  be  continued  as  usual,  changing  the  time,  however, 
from  three  o'clock  P.  M.,  to  one  o'clock,  thus  conforming  to  their  regulated 
time  (and  such  appointment  was  publicly  made)  ;  and  stating  further  that 
the  appointments  would  be  continued  until  a  written  notice  from  the  trust- 
ees, signed  by  at  least  a  majority  of  them,  was  received,  forbidding  the 
use  of  the  house  for  those  services,  and  that  such  notice  only  would  be 
respected. 

The  effect  of  this  answer  was  to  drive  them  from  the  cover  of  their 
stratagem,  and  bring  them  to  open  work,  where  the  full  responsibility  of 
their  action  would  be  assumed.  Accordingly,  before  the  time  for  the  ap- 
pointment announced  had  arrived,  such  notice  was  served,  signed  by  all 
the  trustees,  forbidding  the  use  of  the  house  on  all  occasions,  and  for  all 
purposes,  funeral  services  alone  excepted. 

The  door  of  that  house,  built  by  the  people's  money,  obtained  under 
a  solemn  contract,  creaked  the  song  of  the  exile  as  it  turned  upon  its  hinges, 
and  thus  shut  out  of  a  Christian  church  the  simple  gospel  of  Christ. 


CHAPTER  III. 

TAKEN   TO   THE   CIVIL   COURT — THE   PLEADINGS    IN  THE  CASE. 

Messrs.  Geo.  K..  Poyser,  William  A.  King,  Henry  Herald,  and  Owen 
Davis  are  not,  and  never  have  been,  members  of  the  Christian  Church; 
they  have  been  favorably  impressed  with  its  plain,  simple  and  tangible  pre- 
sentation of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  they  have  listened  to  it  with  deep 
interest ;  but  they  Jrwe  never  identified  thenselves  with  it,  further  than  it  is 
indicated  in  the'.r  acts  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding  and  present  chapters. 

When  the  doors  of  Salem  Chapel  creaked  on  their  hinges,  and  shut 
them  and  the  obnoxious  church  out  of  its  inclosure,  then  the  doo^s  of 
their  hearts  opened,  and  a  solemn  determination  crossed  the  threshold,  and 
took  its  place  therein.  They  determined  to  maintain  their  rights — rights 
secured  to  them  and  the  community,  under  the  forms  of  a  solemn  contract 
(a  contract  which  it  would  seem  an  honest  church  would  not  repudiate), 
even  if  they  had  to  go  to  the  courts  to  do  it.  There  was  no  compromise 
on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Church  people,  they  saying  they  would  have 
the  whole  house  or  none,  and  that  the  key  was  put  into  the  door  to  stay. 
This  settled  the  matter ;  and  to  the  courts,  as  a  last  resort,  the  appeal  was 
made. 

The  gentlemen  mentioned  above,  in  carrying  out  their  determination, 
did  so  knowing  that  it  would  involve  them  in  very  large  pecuniary  outlay, 
whether  they  were  successful  or  not;  but  they  had  been  the  principal 
agents  in  circulating  the  subscription  papers  and  securing  the  funds  of  the 
community  not  connected  with  the  Methodist  Church,  using  honestly  the 
guaranteeing  clause  as  a  reason  for  a  liberal  subscription  on  the  part  of  the 
people ;  they  now  felt  that  some  responsibility  rested  upon  them,  both  to 
secure  the  house  to  the  use  for  which  it  was  erected,  and  to  vindicate  them- 
selves against  any  charge  of  fraudulent  action  on  their  part,  that  might  be 
alleged,  in  obtaining  said  money.  Thus  they  made  their  appeal  to  the 
court,  without  hope  of  reward,  save  in  the  maintenance  of  their  own  in- 
tegrity, and  the  principles  of  right  and  honesty. 

THE   COMPLAINT. 

The  following  is  the  complaint  they  filed  in  the  Noble  County  Circuit 
Court,  viz. : 

27 


28  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tJie  Civil  Courts. 

"  The  State  of  Indiana,  on  relation  of  George  K.  Poyser  and  William 
A.  King,  plaintiff,  vs.  the  Trustees  of  the  Salem  Church  of  the  Meth- 
odist Society  of  the  Haw-Patch  Circuit  of  the  Western  District  of  Michi- 
gan, alias  the  Trustees  of  the  Salem  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  viz., 
Alonzo  T.  Poyser,  David  E.  Damy,  John  Hosteller,  John  Mile,  and  Alvin 
H.  Ramsby,  defendanls. 

"The  plaintiff,  by  said  relators,  complains  of  said  defendants,  the 
trustees  of  the  Salem  Church  of  the  Methodist  Society  of  the  Haw-Patch 
Circuit  of  the  Western  District  of  Michigan,  otherwise  known  as  the  trust- 
ees of  the  Salem  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  says  that  the  said  de. 
fendant  is  a  religious  society  and  church,  organized  as  a  corporation  undei 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  the  defendants,  Alonzo  T.  Poyser, 
David  E.  Damy,  John  Hosteller,  John  Hile,  and  Alvin  H.  Ramsby,  are  ita 
Iruslees. 

"  And  ihe  plaintiff,  by  said  relalors,  further  says,  that  on  the  2jd  day 
of  March,  1874,  and  from  lhal  lime  to  the  year  1878,  the  defendant  corpo- 
ration occupied,  for  religious  worship,  a  church  building  situaled  on  the 
following  described  premises,  in  Noble  Counly,  Indiana,  lo  wit. :  (The 
description  is  omitted. — ED. 

"That  in  the  year  1878,  said  building  having  become  old  and  ineffi- 
cient for  ihe  needs  of  ihe  communily  as  a  place  of  worship,  the  defendant 
corporation,  by  its  truslees,  delermined  lo  erecl  a  new  building.  That  at 
that  time  there  were  residing  in  lhal  vicinity  many  persons  who  were  mem- 
bers of  other  Christian  churches,  and  others  who,  not  belonging  to  any 
church  organization,  were,  neverlheless,  accuslomed  lo  allend  religious 
services  al  said  place,  and  in  order  lo  raise  the  necessary  funds  to  erecl  a 
new  building,  Ihe  Irustees  of  said  defendant  corporation  organized  them- 
selves into  a  building  committee,  and  associated  with  themselves  as  a  mem- 
ber of  such  commitlee  the  relator,  George  K.  Poyser ;  and,  to  induce  olher 
persons,  who  were  not  members  of  the  defendant  church,  lo  subscribe  to 
said  building  funds,  said  trustees  drew  up  writlen  subscriplion  papers, 
having  a  slipulalion  wrilten  in  the  body  of  some  of  said  subscription  pa- 
pers,  and  indorsed  upon  others,  to  the  effect  thai  ihe  house  proposed  to 
be  erected  should  be  free  to  all  orthodox  denominations,  when  nol  occu- 
pied by  ihe  defendant  church,  and  which  subscription  papers,  with  ihe 
knowledge  and  consent  of  the  defendant  corporation,  were,  by  said  com- 
mittee,  circulated  and  subscriptions  solicited  and  obtained  upon  ihe  condi- 
tions aforesaid. 

"And  plaintiff  says  that,  relying  upon  said  stipulations  and  conditions, 
the  relator,  George  K.  Poyser,  subscribed  upon  one  of  said  papers  the  sum 
°f  lUS-00'  a"d  tne  relator,  Wm.  A.  King,  subscribed  the  sum  of  $125.00, 
and  other  persons,  not  members  of  the  defendant  church,  also  subscribed 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  29 

various  other  sums  upon  said  conditions,  in  all  amounting  to  the  sum  of 
$1,400.00;  and  the  aggregate  amount  of  subscriptions  so  made,  by  all  per- 
sons, was  about  $3,000.00 — all  made  on  conditions  aforesaid. 

"And  plaintiff  further  says,  the  relators  paid  their  several  subscrip- 
tions aforesaid  in  full,  as  did  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  other  subscribers;  and  all 
of  the  subscriptions  were  accepted  by  the  defendant's  trustees,  acting  for 
the  defendant,  and  the  money  paid  was  accepted  by  the  defendant  upon 
said  conditions,  and  used  in  erecting  a  brick  church  building  upon  the 
premises  aforesaid,  in  the  year  1879. 

"And  plaintiff  further  says  that,  for  some  years  after  the  erection  of 
said  church  building,  the  defendant  permitted  other  religious  denomi- 
nations to  hold  meetings  and  worship  in  said  church  building  on  the  Sab- 
bath, as  stated  and  agreed  in  the  conditions  aforesaid,  in  said  subscription 
papers,  at  such  time  as  the  same  was  not  occupied  by  the  defendant 
church's  denomination;  that  said  building  is  in  the  country,  and  away  from 
any  village,  town,  or  city;  and  that  the  defendant's  church  was  not  accus- 
tomed to  hold  religious  services  upon  each  Sabbath  day;  or,  if  they  did, 
they  did  not  hold  such  services  more  than  twice  a  day;  and  there  being 
members  of  a  religious  denomination  known  as  the  Christian  Church  re- 
siding in  that  vicinity,  who  had  made  subscriptions  to  said  building  fund, 
and  paid  the  same,  who  desired  to  worship  in  said  building,  under  the  min- 
istrations of  J.  H.  Edwards,  a  minister  of  said  church,  in  good  and  regular 
standing,  it  was  arranged  and  understood  that  said  minister  might  hold  re- 
ligious services  in  said  church,  at  regular  intervals,  at  such  time  as  the 
same  was  not  occupied  by  the  defendant's  church ;  and,  in  pursuance  of 
said  arrangement,  the  said  Edwards  had  been  accustomed  to  hold  divine 
service  according  to  the  methods  of  his  denomination,  in  said  building ; 
but  the  defendant  has  of  late  changed  his  appointments  so  as  to  interfere 
with  the  appointments  of  the  said  Edwards. 

"And  the  plaintiff  further  says,  that  the  said  Edwards,  and  those  act- 
ing with  him,  with  a  view  of  avoiding  any  collision  or  interference  with 
the  defendant,  changed  his  appointments  to  another  hour  of  the  day,  and 
so  notified  the  defendant's  trustees;  and  thereupon  the  defendant,  by  its 
trustees,  notified  the  said  Edwards  that  he  could  no  longer  hold  any  religious 
service  or  meeting  in  said  church  building  at  any  time,  except  funeral  ser- 
vices;  and  since  the  l8th  day  of  January,  1883,  has,  and  still  does  abso- 
lutely refuse  to  permit  the  said  Christian  Church  denomination,  by  its  pastor 
aforesaid,  and  under  its  ministrations,  to  worship  or  hold  meeting  in  said 
church,  except  funeral  services. 

"And  plaintiff,  by  said  relators,  avers  that  said  Christian  Church  is  an 
orthodox  denomination,  and,  by  the  stipulations  and  agreement  in  said 
subscription  papers,  is  of  right  entitled  to  use  said  building,  when  not  oc- 
cupied by  the  defendant,  or  by  other  orthodox  denominations.  That  the 


jo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

defendant  does  not  occupy  said  building  at  all  hours  of  the  Sabbath  day, 
nor  does  it  honestly  and  sincerely  propose  so  to  do ;  but  its  purpose  is  to 
entirely  exclude  said  Christian  Church  denomination  from  holding  reli- 
gious worship  in  said  church  building;  and  plaintiff  further  avers  that 
the  acts  of  the  defendant  in  the  premises,  are  in  direct  contravention  of 
its  agreement  and  duty  made  and  imposed  by  receiving  said  subscriptions 
aforesaid. 

"And  plaintiff  further  says,  that  the  said  Edwards  is  ready  and  willing 
to  hold  religious  services  for  his  denomination  in  said  building,  at  such 
hours  as  the  same  is  not  necessarily  occupied  on  the  Sabbath  day  by  the 
defendant's  church  ;  and  these  relators,  as  subscribers  to  said  fund,  with 
others,  also  subscribers,  and  members  of  said  Christian  Church,  are  desi- 
rous that  said  Edwards  shall  hold  meetings  and  religious  services  there  at 
such  times. 

"Wherefore  plaintiff,  by  these  relators,  asks  that  this  court  cause  to 
issue  a  writ  of  mandate  to  defendant,  and  its  trustees,  aforesaid,  command- 
ing said  defendant  and  its  trustees,  to  permit  said  Christian  Church  de- 
nomination, under  the  ministration  of  said  Edwards,  to  hold  religious  ser- 
vices in  said  building,  at  such  reasonable  and  convenient  time  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  as  the  same  may  not  be  occupied,  and  to  designate  such  time ;  or, 
in  default  thereof,  that  the  court  may,  upon  the  hearing,  determine  such 
time  as  it  will  not  be  needed  for  use  by  the  defendant's  church,  and  when 
it  may  be  used  by  said  Christian  Church  denomination ;  or  show  cause  why 
the  same  may  not  be  done.  GEO.  K.  POYSER. 

"VVM.  A.  KING." 

Upon  this  complaint  the  court  issued  an  alternative  writ  of  mandate, 
ordering  the  defendants  to  so  act,  or  show  cause  why  they  should  not 
do  so. 

The  defendants  demurred,  alleging  that  the  things  set  forth  in  the 
complaint  are  not  sufficient  cause  for  the  issue  of  the  extraordinary  writ  of 
mandamus.  The  demurrer  was  argued  before  the  court,  but  it  was  over- 
ruled, and  the  defendants  were  ordered  to  file  their  answer.  After  the 
usual  legal  gymnastics,  incident  to  joining  of  the  issues  in  important  cases 
before  a  court,  the  defendants  filed  the  following  answer: 

THE   ANSWER.* 

I.  The  Methodist  Protestant  Church  purchased,  June  14,  1849,  the 
parcel  of  land  in  fee  simple  on  which  the  house  was  built,  and  the  deed 
was  recited.  It  was  claimed  that  the  trustees  had  no  legal  right  to  jeop- 

*  A  summary  only  of  the  answers,  and  the  following  reply,  is  given,  as  this  is  all 
that  is  necessary  to  give  an  understanding  of  the  issues  as  they  were  finally  :oined. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  31 

arclize  the  invested  rights  of  the  conference  by  the   insertion  of  the  clause 
in  the  subscription  papers,  recited  by  the  plaintiff  in  the  complaint. 

2.  The  second  answer  set  forth  the  power  which  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church,  under  its  discipline,  has  to  build,  repair,  lease,  or  sell  prop- 
erty, in  the  following  words,  to  wit. : 

"Each  church  or  society  shall  have  power,  by  the  concurrent  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  qualified  members,  publicly  called  together  for  that  pur- 
pose, to  purchase,  build,  lease,  sell,  or  rent,  or  otherwise  obtain  or  dispose 
of  property  for  the  benefit  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church." 

Also,  that — 

"The  trustees  shall  have  power,  when  authorized  by  two-thirds  of  the 
qualified  members  of  the  society,  at  a  meeting  for  the  purpose,  of  which 
meeting  at  least  four  weeks'  public  notice  shall  have  been  given,  to  pur. 
chase,  build,  repair,  lease,  sell,  rent,  mortgage,  or  otherwise  procure  or 
dispose  of  property,  and  on  no  other  condition  or  conditions  whatever." 

It  then  sets  forth  that,  at  the  meeting  at  which  the  arrangements  were 
made  to  build  the  house,  there  were  not  present  the  required  two-thirds  of 
the  qualified  membership ;  that  therefore  the  trustees  had  no  legal  power 
to  build,  because  the  conditions  upon  which  the  discipline  grants  said 
power  had  not  been  complied  with,  and  that,  therefore,  the  clause  inserted 
in  the  subscription  papers,  and  recited  by  the  plaintiff,  is  void. 

3.  "That  said  denomination,  mentioned  in  the  alternative  writ,  is  not  an 
orthodox  church :  nor  is  said  Edwards  a  preacher  of  an  orthodox  church. 

"ALONZO   T.   POYSER,  JOHN    HOSTETTER, 

'•DAVID  E.  DAMY,  ALVIN  H.  RAMSEY." 

"JOHN  KITE, 

THE  REPLY. 

To  the  foregoing  answer,  by  the  defendants,  the  plaintiff  made  the  fol- 
lowing replies,  to  wit : 

1.  That  the  trustees  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  acquired  their 
title  from  trustees  who   held  only  in   trust  the   premises  descnbeu  in  the:/ 
deed,  it  having  been  deeded  by  Conrad  Miller  and  wife,  on  the  23d  day  of 
May,  1836,  for  a   nominal   sum    ($1.00),  for   "  school-house  site,   meeting- 
house site  for  holding  religious  services,  and  for  grave-yard  site;"  and  that 
in  accordance   with   this  trust    the   Presbyterian,    Baptist,    and    Episcopal 
Methodist  Churches  were  accustomed   to  hold  services  thereon;  that  the 
trustees,  Curl  and  Hosteller,  al  the   time   they  deeded  it  to  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  had  no  title  except  as  such  trustees. 

2.  The  second  reply  denies   that  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  was 
governed  by  the  rule  recited  in  the  answer,  but  by  the  following: 

"SEC.  2.   Each  church  shall  have  the  right  to  hold  and  control  its  own 


32  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

property,  and  manage  its  own  local  affairs  independent  of  all  other  associa. 
tions,  relations  or  bodies." 

"SEC.  4.  The  trustees  shall  have  power,  when  authorized  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  members,  over  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  assembled  at  a 
regular  meeting  for  the  purpose,  to  purchase,  build,  repair,  lease,  sell,  rent, 
mortgage,  or  otherwise  procure  or  dispose  of  property,  and  on  no  other 
conditions  whatever." 

That  the  trustees  were  authorized  by  a  majority  of  the  members  thus 
entitled  to  vote;  that,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  proceedings,  the  church 
ratified  the  actions  of  the  building  committee  and  trustees,  by  more  than 
a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  members,  by  accepting  said  building. 

With  this  the  issues  were  joined,  and  the  cause  wen.  to  the  court. 

THE   PERSONNEL  OF  THE  CASE. 

To  inject  a  vital  personality  into  the  narrative,  the  following  ftrsonnel 
of  the  case  is  given  : 

The  judge  who  presided  over  the  court,  J.  Wes.  McBride,  of  Waterloo, 
is  a  man  approaching  middle  age,  of  quick  and  quite  accurate  perception, 
prompt  and  pushing  in  business,  usually  correct  in  his  rulings,  and  remark- 
ably free  from  bias  in  applying  the  law.  Religiously,  he  is  an  Episcopal 
Methodist,  having  been  a  member  of  that  church  for  a  number  of  years. 
This  is  the  man  who  was  the  first  to  preside  over  an  American  court 
wherein  the  question  of  religious  orthodoxy  was  involved. 

The  official  reporter  of  the  court,  Mr.  George  A.  Yopst,  of  Logans- 
port,  is  a  young  man  of  good  reportorial  qualifications,  having  reported  a 
number  of  important  cases  in  other  courts.  His  pencil  caught  every  im- 
portant item  connected  with  the  trial  from  first  to  last,  as  related  to  the 
evidence  given. 

The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  consisted  of  A.  A.  Chapin,  of  Kendall- 
ville ;  J.  D.  Ferrall,  of  LaGrange,  and  W.  I).  Owen,  of  Logansport.  Mr. 
Chapin,  the  leading  counsel,  has  always  been  a  Presbyterian  in  his  religious 
belief.  As  an  attorney  he  is  a  man  of  exceptional  ability  in  many  re- 
spects, being,  when  aroused,  it  is  said,  almost  inexhaustible  in  honorable 
resources  to  combat  an  opponent,  displays  of  which  were  frequent  in  this 
trial.  It  must  be  conceded  that  it  is  no  mean  indication  when  a  man  can 
take  the  cause  of  a  people,  whose  teachings  and  practices  have  been  hith- 
erto unknown  to  him,  except  as  they  have  come  to  him  in  a  desultory  way, 
and  to  identify  himself  with  them  so  as  to  make  himself  a  part  of  them; 
and  then,  amid  the  balkings  of  a  wily  counsel,  win  for  them  a  consummate 
victory.  This  is  A.  A.  Chapin.  Mr.  Ferrall,  likewise,  is  a  man  who,  by 
his  ability,  has  risen  to  an  honorable  position  at  the  bar,  and  who,  by  his 
quickness  to  comprehend  the  scope  of  a  question,  and  by  his  tact  to  coun- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  Jj 

teract  any  false  impression  it  might  make  with  the  proper  cross-question, 
proves  himself  to  be  a  formidable  opponent  where  the  issues  involved  are 
of  sufficient  importance  to  arouse  his  energies,  as  they  were  in  this  case ; 
for  he  is  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  he  is  enlisted,  heart  and 
soul,  in  the  success  of  the  great  plea  which  it  makes.  W.  D.  Owen  is 
comparatively  a  young  man,  being  considerably  on  the  sunny  side  of  forty, 
having  made  his  reputation,  not  so  much  as  an  attorney,  as  by  his  bril- 
liancy both  as  a  writer  and  speaker,  and  by  the  suavity  of  his  popular  ora- 
tory in  the  pulpit,  where  he  naturally  belongs.  With  his  thorough  study 
of  the  questions  involved,  and  the  stimulation  of  a  great  crisis  upon  him, 
he  would  have  made  the  master  speech  of  his  life  could  he  have  been  per- 
mitted to  appear  before  the  jury. 

Neither  were  the  counsel  for  the  defense  lacking  in  ability.  The 
leading  counsel  was  Hon.  John  H.  Baker,  of  Goshen.  Associated  with 
him  was  Hon.  W.  C.  Glasgow,  of  LaGrange.  Both  of  these  gentlemen 
are  men  of  superior  ability.  Mr.  Baker  has  represented  his  district  in 
the  national  Congress ;  and  Mr.  Glasgow  was  the  Republican  candidate 
for  Congress  at  the  last  election.  Both  of  these  men  are  in  the  prime  of 
life.  Mr.  Baker  is  a  tall,  attractive  man,  with  high  forehead,  and  pleasing 
countenance,  and  is  deft  and  skilful  in  the  handling  of  his  case  before  the 
court.  Mr.  Glasgow  is  reputed  to  be  a  consummate  adept  in  the  free  and 
easy  use  of  words  in  his  speeches,  and  had  he  appeared  before  the  jury, 
he  would,  no  doubt,  have  made  the  best  use  possible  of  this  graceful  attain- 
ment. The  defendants  have  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  their  counsel.  Mr. 
Baker  is  an  ardent  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  Mr. 
Glasgow  is  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Both  of  these  gentle- 
men, being  warmly  attached  to  their  own  churches,  and  their  doctrines, 
were  determined  to  fasten  the  stigma  of  "  heterodoxy  "  upon  the  church 
opposed  to  them  before  the  court. 

Following  is  the  list  of  jurymen  who  constituted  the  panel  to  try  the 
case,  as  brought  in  by  the  sheriff:  JohnNewland,  Washington  Y.  Leonard, 
John  C.  Foot,  Wm.  W.  Riddle,  Jas.  A.  Hamlin,  Washington  W.  Cleland,  D. 
Berger,  Jos.  B.  Riddle,  Jos.  M.  Shew,  Chas.  Breidert,  Washington  A.  Coon, 
and  Franklin  P.  Kiblinger.  These  men  have  been  facetiously  called  "  the 
twelve  apostles  of  the  State  of  Indiana  to  determine  what  orthodoxy  is." 
It  was  insisted  upon  by  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  that  all  the  issues  of 
the  case  be  tried  by  the  judge  alone;  but  this  he  refused  to  do,  saying 
that  he  had  already  prejudged  the  matter,  and  was  compelled  to  ask  for 
the  instruction  of  a  jury  upon  the  point  of  orthodoxy  involved;  hence  the 
impaneling  of  the  above  jury.  This  jury  was  made  up  of  ordinarily  in- 
telligent men ;  but  no  one  of  them,  nor  any  member  of  their  families, 
was  a  member  of  either  church  involved  in  the  controversy ;  in  sentiment, 


34  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

however,  some  of  them  were  Methodistic,  others  were  Baptist,  others  were 
Universalist,  and  others  were  of  no  religious  predilection ;  but  all  these 
jurymen  went  into  the  jury-box  with  crude  and  mistaken  notions  of  the 
church  and  its  teaching,  the  orthodoxy  of  which  they  were  to  pass  upon. 

The  witnesses,  as  far  as  they  were  examined  on  the  question  of  ortho- 
doxy, were  ].  H.  Edwards,  pastor  of  the  Ligonier  Christian  Church ;  Geo. 
W.  Chapman,  formerly  elder  and  pastor  of  the  same  church ;  W.  D.  Owen, 
one  of  the  attorneys,  and  pastor  of  the  Christian  Churches  of  Frankfort 
and  Crawfordsville,  Indiana ;  L.  L.  Carpenter,  State  evangelist,  in  the  em- 
ploy of  the  Indiana  Christian  Sunday-school  Association ;  Rev.  B.  Post, 
pastor  of  the  Salem  Protestant  Methodist  Church;  and  Rev.  J.  W.  Smith, 
a  minister  and  ex-pastor  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — these  were 
the  witnesses  used.  There  were  other  witnesses  in  attendance  who  were 
not  called  to  the  stand.  Among  these  were  Rev.  G.  W.  Barr,  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  Rev.  Jabez  Shafer,  of  the  Lutheran  Church  (both  of  these 
gentlemen  were  pastors  of  their  respective  churches  in  Albion,  the  town 
where  the  court  was  held),  and  various  other  reverend  gentlemen  of  the 
Protestant  Methodist  Church,  some  of  whom  had  been  pastors  at  Salem 
Chapel — among  them  the  president  of  their  Conference. 

Thus  the  reader  has  before  him  the  personnel  of  the  case — the  judge, 
the  reporter,  the  counsel,  the  jurymen,  and  the  witnesses. 

THE  DIFFERENCE    BETWEEN    THE  PLAINTIFF    AND  THE  DEFENDANT  AS  TO 
THE  THEORY   OF   ORTHODOXY. 

The  defendant's  attorneys,  no  doubt,  labored  under  the  conception, 
as  shown  in  their  management  of  the  case,  that  a  systematic  and  coherent 
scheme  of  religion  can  not  be  held  by  a  people  who  take  the  uncom- 
mented,  the  uninterpreted  Bible  alone  as  their  standard  ;  that  an  authorita- 
tively formulated  theology  is  necessary  to  create  a  system ;  and  that,  inas- 
much as  the  Christian  Church  has  no  such  formulation,  it,  as  a  body  of 
people,  is  not  a  unit  upon  anything,  save  it  may  be  upon  baptism.  This 
state  of  facts  existing,  it  is,  therefore,  without  any  coherent  scheme  of  re- 
ligion, and  must  be  without  the  pale  of  orthodoxy.  It  will  be  observed  in 
reading  the  following  testimony  how  persistently  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  pushed  to  the  front — the  very  same  doctrine  over  which  Alexander 
and  Arius  quarreled  in  Alexandria,  both  sides  of  which,  by  like  constituted 
and  responsible  authorities  (the  same  authorities  in  kind,  which  create 
formulated  theology)  have  been  pronounced  both  orthodox  and  hetero- 
dox !  This  unfavorable  conception  of  orthodoxy  seems  to  have  been  the 
one  under  which  the  defendant's  attorneys  labored. 

But  the  onus  probandi  was  upon  the  plaintiff  in  this  case,  and  upon  it 
fell  the  duty  of  deploying  the  line  of  battle — the  line  along  which  was  to 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  35 

be  heard  the  clang  of  orthodox  cimeters.  It  was  asserted  in  the  complnrnf 
that  the  Christian  Church  is  an  orthodox  church.  This  was  denied  in  tk» 
defendant's  answer.  On  this  direct  issue  the  proof  was  called  for.  Th« 
line  of  proof  determined  upon  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  To  set  up  "the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,r 
to  be   the  only  standard  by  which   to  determine  this  question,   the  san»' 
as   the   apostolic,    and    immediately   subsequent,   Christians   received  th« 
Scriptures. 

2.  To  present  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  as  the  teaching  is  insisted 
upon  by  the  Christian  Church,  squarely  upon  the  two  great  points:     First, 
The  things  which  are  necessary  to  bring   a  man  from  the  world  into  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and  thus  secure  to  him  the  salvation  from  his  past  sins, 
viz. :  faith  in  the  objects  (not  dogmas)  of  gospel  belief,  repentance,  or  turn- 
ing to  reformation  of  life;  confession,  or  the  public  profession  of  this  faith 
and  repentance ;  and  baptism  into  the  trinity  of  adorable  names.     Second, 
The  things  which  are  necessary  to  keep  a  man  in  the  Church  of  Christ  after 
he  is  in  as  long  as  he  shall  live,  and  thus  secure  to  him  the  everlasting  sal- 
vation in  the  kingdom  above,  viz. :  prayer,  the  holy  service  of  worship,  and 
the  acts  of  a  fraternal,  philanthropic  and  a  pious  life. 

3.  To  insist  that  upon  these  things  all  religious  parties  who  accept  the 
Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God  are  substantially  agreed,  though  they  may 
differ  somewhat  in  their  manner  of  presenting  them ;  that  is,  that  all  these 
parties,  with  one  consent,  will  agree  that  a  man  who  has  faithfully  fulfilled 
all  the  obligations  set  forth  in  the  above  outline  will  be  saved,  according  to 
the  gospel  promises. 

4.  To   maintain   that   in   these  things   only  can   orthodoxy   be   truly 
affirmed  of  any  party;  that  this  is  the  only  reasonable  Bible  orthodoxy 
there  is. 

5.  That  the  Christian  Church,  arraigned   before  the  bar  of  the  court, 
stands  or  falls  upon    this  line — if  that  be  orthodox,  then  it  is  orthodox ;  if 
that  be  heterodox,  then  it  is  heterodox. 

Upon  this  line  was  the  battle  fought,  though  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendant persistently  tried  to  shift  it  to  another. 

With  the  issues  all  joined,  and  with  the  intensest,  though  subdued, 
feeling  prevailing,  the  witnesses  were  directed  to  stand  before  the  clerk  of 
the  court  and  solemnize  the  testimony  they  were  about  to  give  with  the 
sanctities  of  a  solemn  oath  before  Almighty  God;  and  they  were  then  put 
on  the  stand,  one  by  one. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  TESTIMONY. — A    VERBATIM    REPORT. 

State  of  Indiana,      "> 
Noble  County,      /  ss 

In  the  Noble  Circuit  Court,  before  His  Honor,  Judge  J.  Wes.  McBride. 

The  State  of  Indiana,  on  relation  of  George  K.  Poyser  and  William  A. 
King,  plaintift,  vs.  the  Trustees  of  the  Salem  Church  of  the  Method, 
ist  Society,  etc.,  etc.,  defendants. 

The  above  named  cause  was  called  for  trial  by  Judge  McBride,  on  the 
morning  of  June  19,  1883. 

APPOINTMENT  OF  OFFICIAL  REPORTER. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  at  the  June  term  of  the  Noble  Circuit  Court, 
the  above  entitled  cause  being  called  for  trial,  and  the  issues  being  joined, 
a  jury  being  empaneled,  George  A.  Yopst,  a  short-hand  reporter,  being 
appointed  by  the  court  as  official  stenographer  in  said  cause,  after  being 
duly  sworn  to  faithfully  report  all  the  evidence  in  the  cause,  proceeded  so 
to  do ;  and  having  made  a  transcript  of  the  evidence  relative  to  the  issue 
of  orthodoxy,  or  non-orthodoxy  of  the  Christian  Church  in  controversy,  it 
is  in  the  words  and  fig-res  following,  to  wit: 

SECTION  I. 

TESTIMONY   OF   J.    H.    EDWARDS. 

Mr.  Edwards,  a  witness  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn, 
.estified  as  follows : 

Examination  in  Cluef. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  your  name  to  the  court  ? 

A.  My  name  is  J.  H.  Edwards. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Edwards? 

A.  I  reside  in  Ligonier,  Indiana. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  a  minister  of  the  gospel. 
36 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  j? 

Q.  In  what  church  ? 

A.  In  the  Church  of  Christ,  or  Christian  Church. 

Q.  Are  you  the  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Ligonier  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  any  position  in  the  Christian  Church  in  the  State  of 
Indiana?  If  so,  what? 

A.  I  have  recently  been  Secretary  of  the  Northern  Indiana  Christian 
Ministerial  Association,  and  am  at  present  the  president  of  the  State  Chris- 
tian Ministerial  Association  of  Indiana. 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  are  you  acquainted  with  the  practices  and  teachings 
generally  of  the  religious  denominations  of  this  country? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  so. 

Q.  Please  state  whether  the  Christian  Church  is  an  orthodox  denomi- 
nation ? 

A.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Has  that  church  any  statement  or  rule  of  faith  and  practice  to 
which  a  member  must  conform  ? 

A.  It  has  an  authoritative  statement  both  as  to  faith  and  practice. 

Q.  What  is  that  church's  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ? 

A.   "The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible." 

Q.  Will  you  please  state,  Mr.  Edwards,  what  the  plea  of  the  Christian 
Church  is,  as  compared  with  the  accepted  orthodoxy  of  other  churches  ? 

A.  The  great  plea  which  I  understand  the  Church  to  have  made  is 
this:  The  union  of  all  Christians,  disciples  of  Christ,  in  one  body,  with 
the  word  of  God  as  the  basis  of  that  union.  The  union  of  all  Christians 
under  one  head,  Christ,  is  the  great  plea  they  make. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  all  Christians  ought  to  be 
one,  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  Christian  Church  ? 

A.  I  mean  they  ought  to  be  one  in  those  things  which  the  Scriptures 
teach  as  being  essential  to  salvation — the  things  necessary  to  one's  turning 
to  God  and  living  a  holy  and  pious  life. 

Q.  Now,  then,  do  you  mean  to  say  you  would  permit  any  differences 
of  opinion? 

A.  In  those  things  which  are  merely  opinions — in  those  things  we 
allow  the  greatest  latitude.  These  things  make  no  difference  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  Church. 

Q.  Does  or  does  not  the  Christian  Church  accept  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  Scriptures  as  inspired? 

A.   It  does. 

(?.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  demands  of  its  members, 
and  those  coming  to  its  membership,  a  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  ? 

A.  It  does. 


jfS  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts, 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  it  demands  a  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  a  divine 
being. 

A.  It  does.  It  always  demands  a  confession  of  faith  in  Him  as  the  Son 
of  God. 

Q.  Well,  would  or  would  not  the  Church  accept  one  as  a  member  who 
would  refuse  to  make  this  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  divin* 
Son  of  God  ? 

A.  It  would  not. 

Q.  He  would  not  be  accepted  as  a  member  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Whose  voice  does  the  Church  recognize  as  authoritative  in  the 
matters  of  salvation  ? 

A.  The  voice  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Q.  If  there  be  any  authoritative  commandment  which  Jesus  gave  to 
His  apostles  concerning  the  matter  of  salvation,  please  state  what  it  is. 

A.  There  is  the  great  commission  which  Jesus  gave  His  apostles.  He 
said:  "All  authority  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit :  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii.  18— 
20.)  The  Church  regards  Him  as  authority  in  these  things — in  the  matters 
of  salvation. 

Q.  Does  the  Christian  Church  teach  that  the  apostles  who  went  about 
preaching  the  gospel  had  a  creed,  or  command,  which  Jesus  had  given 
them? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  a  man,  therefore,  should  accept  this  proclamation  of  the  gospel 
which  the  apostles  made,  what  relation  would  it  put  him  into  with  refer- 
ence to  Jesus?  If  a  man  now  accepts  this  proclamation  of  the  gospel 
which  the  apostles  then  made,  into  what  relation  does  it  place  him  with 
reference  to  Jesus  ? 

A.  It  puts  him  into  the  relation  of  a  disciple  of  Jesus. 

Q.  Into  the  relationship  of  a  disciple  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  this  acceptance  of  the  gospel  authorized  to  be  preached  by  Jesus 
requisite  in  order  that  a  person  be  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
Church,  or  that  he  become  a  disciple  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  accepts  it  through  his  faith. 

Q.  Does  the  Christian  Church  teach  that  Jesus  is  the  only  Counselor, 
and  Guide,  and  Commander  in  matters  of  religion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  does. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  jp 

Q.  Does  it  teach  that  Jesus  is  the  sole  Saviour  of  sinners? 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  What  is  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  with  reference  to  the 
power,  authority,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  Saviour  ?  Does  the  Church  teach 
that  these  are  necessary  and  able  to  effect  the  salvation  of  mankind  ? 

A,  With  reference  to  the  power  and  authority,  and  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Saviour,  it  teaches  that  these  are  sufficient  to  save  all ;  but  that  the  sal- 
vation of  men  depends  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel,  and  its  agencies 
of  salvation  by  them. 

Q.  That  the  salvation  of  men  depends  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  life, 
teachings,  and  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  the  Christian  Church  accepts  Jesus  Christ  as  the  object  of 
faith  for  the  Christian. 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  State  if  baptism  is  necessary,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

A.  It  is ;  being  accepted  as  a  command  of  the  Saviour,  it  must  be 
obeyed. 

Q.  What  does  the  Christian  Church  teach  as  the  first  necessary  step 
on  the  part  of  the  sinner  that  he  may  obtain  salvation? 

A.  That  he  have  faith  in  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. 

Q.  What  does  that  Church  next  require  as  necessary  ? 

A.  It  teaches,  and  therefore  necessarily  requires,  that  the  sinner  re- 
pent of  his  sins — his  former  sins — and  turn  to  live  a  life  of  holiness  and 
virtue,  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  What  next  does  the  Church  require  as  necessary? 

A.  The  sinner  having  believed  in  God  and  in  Christ,  and  having 
repented  of  his  sins,  and  turned  to  live  a  life  of  righteousness  and  virtue, 
the  Church  next  requires  that  he  confess  Christ  before  man,  for  the  reason 
that  the  Saviour  has  said,  "Every  one,  therefore,  who  siiall  confess  me  be- 
fore men,  him  will  I  confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But 
whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  x.  32,  33.) 

Q.  What  next  does  that  Church  require? 

A.  It  next  requires  that  the  sinner  submit  himself  to  the  command 
which  was  given  by  the  Saviour  in  the  commission — the  first  half  of  the 
commission — "Make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Q.  What  next  does  that  Church  require  ? 

A.  That  he  conform  to  the  second  half  of  the  Saviour's  commission — 
"  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsover  I  have  commanded  you," 


fo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

thus  living  prayerful  and  pious  lives,  continuing  that  obedience  until  the 
close  of  life. 

Q.  After  the  sinner  has  had  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  has  repented  of 
his  sins,  and  has  confessed  Christ  as  the  divine  Son  of  God,  and  has  been 
baptized,  what  is  the  teaching  of  that  Church  as  to  the  effect  of  these  things 
upon  the  condition  of  the  sinner? 

A.  It  teaches  that  he  is  then  received  into  the  fellowship  of  God,  and 
becomes  His  child,  and  that,  so  far  as  the  sins  of  his  past  life  are  concerned, 
they  are  remembered  against  him  no  more. 

Q.  That  process  makes  him  a  Christian  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  he  ought  to  be  received  into  the  Church. 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  did  the  Saviour  and  His  apostles  ever  require  by  a 
commandment  faith  in  any  other  object,  or  person,  than  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  God  ? 

A.   No,  sir,  I  think  not. 

Q.  Did  the  Saviour  and  the  apostles  ever  require  any  other  belief  and 
acts  of  obedience,  as  you  term  them,  as  prerequisites  to  membership  in  the 
church,  than  faith  in  Christ,  confession  of  Him,  repentance  of  sin,  and 
baptism? 

A.  I  know  of  none,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  the  gentleman  who  preached  in  Salem  Chapel? 

A.  I  am,  sir. 

Q.  Please  state  to  the  court  and  jury  whether  or  not,  in  your  preach- 
ing in  Salem  Chapel,  you  preached  what  are  said  to  be  the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  think,  so  far  as  I  can  now  tell,  I  kept  wholly  within 
the  line  of  them  in  my  discourses  there. 

Q,  I  wish  to  ask  you  now,  Mr.  Edwards,  if  the  denomination  you  rep- 
resent, and  for  whom  you  were  preaching  at  Salem  Chapel,  believe  and 
practice  the  things  you  have  stated  on  the  stand,  and  which  you  say  you 
have  preached  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  preach  at  Salem  Chapel? 

A.  Well,  I  preached  once  in  February,  I  think,  of  1882.  Then  I 
did  not  preach  any  more  until  in  April,  of  the  same  year.  From  that  time, 
with  the  exception  of  one  or  two  Lord's  days,  I  preached  every  alternate 
Sunday  afternoon  until  the  7th  of  January,  1883. 

Q.  Have  you  preached  there  since   the  time  of  which  you  last  spoke? 

A.  I  have  not,  sir. 

Q.  Why  have  you  not? 

A.  On  account  of  a  notice  that  was  given  to  me. 

Q.  What  notice  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  41 

A.  The  notice  that  was  read  before  the  court  and  jury,  forbidding  any 
u?e  of  the  house  to  me  except  on  funeral  occasions. 

Q.  And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  you  have  not  preached  there  since  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant. 

Q.  You  say  you  are  acquainted  with  various  orthodox  denominations  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to  state  the  various  orthodox  denomi- 
nations with  which  you  are  acquainted  ? 

A.  Well,  I  have  an  acquaintance  with  the  Methodist  denomination, 
with  the  Presbyterians,  and  with  the  Baptists. 

Q.  Which  branch  of  the  Methodist  Church  do  you  refer  to  ? 

A.  Well,  I  have  an  acquaintance  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  and 
also  with  the  Protestant  Methodist  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  an  orthodox 
church  t 

A.  So  far  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  holds  to  the  essential 
elements  of  which  I  have  spoken,  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  an  orthodox  church, 
jr  as  one  of  the  orthodox  churches  ? 

A.  In  the  same  way,  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  the  Protestant  Methodist  Church  as  an  orthodox 
church  7 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  wherein  it  holds  those  points  I  have  stated. 

Q.  In  respect  to  the  other  points  you  have  not  stated,  do  you  regard 
this  Church  as  heterodox? 

A.  With  reference  to  that,  I  would  make  this  statement :  The  lead- 
ing differences  between  Protestant  denominations  are  in  matters  mostly  of 
minor  importance,  and  so  far  as  these  matters  are  concerned  they  are  mere 
differences  of  opinion.  We  do  not  make  opinions  matters  of  fellowship  or 
non-fellowship.  On  such  doctrines  as  the  trinity,  foreordination,  predesti- 
nation, original  sin,  the  decrees,  etc.,  we  are  content  to  allow  men  to  hold 
such  opinion  as  seems  good  to  them,  without  putting  them  under  the  ban 
of  heterodoxy,  providing  that  they  truly  hold  the  essential  elements,  a 
statement  of  which  I  have  given.  Hence,  I  do  not  regard  .his  Church,  as 
a  body  of  people,  as  heterodox. 

Q.  You  are  familiar  with  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have  read  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  it  as  a  statement  of  orthodox  belief  ? 

A.  It  is  a  statement  of  orthodox  belief  so  far  as  it  states  those  points-^- 
the   essential    elements   of   salvation — which    I    have   enumerated,  and  in 
which  all  professing  Christians  agree. 
4 


4.2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Are  there  any  points  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  that  you  regard  as  orthodox?  If  so,  state  what  ones,  and  what  ones 
as  heterodox,  if  you  please. 

A.  There  are  teachings  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  that  I 
consider  as  orthodox,  notably  so  far  as  those  teachings  conform  to  the 
statements  I  have  previously  made  as  to  the  essential  elements  of  salvation; 
and  there  are  teachings  in  it  that  do  not  harmonize  with  my  opinions — 
among  them  the  doctrine  of  foreordination  and  predestination,  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation,  the  decrees,  etc.  With  some  this  want 
of  harmony  in  opinions  would  constitute  heterodox-  but  with  me  it  does 
not. 

Q.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  faith  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  articles  of  faith  of  the  Methodist  Church  as 
being  orthodox  ? 

A.  In  those  matters  in  which  there  is  no  variance  from  the  Bible,  I 
do.  Wherein  it  differs  from  that,  in  which  it  states  the  conclusions  of 
human  speculation,  or  in  which  it  gives  merely  human  opinions,  I  would 
not. 

Q.  What  portion  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  principles  of  be- 
lief of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  do  you  recognize  as  being  hetero- 
dox ?  Do  you  recognize  either  of  them  as  being  heterodox  in  any  one 
point  of  faith  ? 

A.  As  I  have  stated  before,  there  are  some  things  about  which,  among 
all  professing  Christians,  there  are  differences,  and  these  differences  are 
usually  mere  opinions ;  but  where  these  differences  are  great,  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  and  in  the  Methodist  Dis- 
cipline, wherein  the  former  confines  salvation  to  an  unconditional  election, 
and  the  latter  makes  salvation  a  conditionally  free  salvation,  they  mutually 
destroy  the  orthodoxy  of  each,  so  far  as  this  point  is  concerned ;  at  least 
both  of  them  can  not  be  orthodox  upon  this  point. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  as  being 
orthodox  ? 

A.  As  I  have  before  stated,  yes,  sir,  in  those  points  I  have  enumer- 
ated. 

Q.  Well,  now,  in  other  points,  in  the  balance  of  its  faith,  do  you  recog- 
nize the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  as  heterodox  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  need  to  answer  further  than  to  point  out  its 
differences  from  other  denominations;  those  differences  will  answer  the 
question. 

Q.  Will  you  point  out  the  differences  to  which  you  allude  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  43 

A.  Well,  one  difference  between  it  and  the  Presbyterians  is  upon  the 
Hoc. <ine  of  foreordination. 

(A   You  are  speaking  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  the  Presbyterians  teach  the  doctrine  of  foreordin- 
ation, which,  f  understand,  the  Methodists  discard,  and  do  not  teach.  So 
far  as  that  difference  is  concerned,  they  testify  to  each  other's  non-ortho- 
doxy, and  1  need  not  assert  whether  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  in 
any  of  its  teachings,  is  or  is  not  heterodox. 

Q.  Will  you  please  give  your  attention  to  the  question  I  propounded  ? 
I  will  ask  that  you  state  whether  the  articles  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
belief,  as  you  regard  them,  are  heterodox,  any  one  of  them  ?  and  if  there 
are  any  ones  of  them  that  are  heterodox,  state  which  ones  are. 

(To  this  question  an  objection  was  made,  but  the  question  was  re- 
stated.) 

Q.  If  there  is  any  statement,  or  doctrine,  or  belief,  or  faith  in  the 
Methodist  Protestant  belief,  or  faith,  that  you  regard  as  unorthodox,  please 
state  it. 

A.  Well,  so  far  as  the  great  essential  matters  of  salvation  are  con- 
cerned, and  I  associate  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy  with  these  alone,  and 
not  with  the  things  of  indifferent  human  speculation,  with  which  the  creeds 
are  so  largely  filled,  I  would  make  no  exception. 

Q.  Is  there  any  one  of  the  doctrines  that  are  contained  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  or  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  that 
you  regard  as  unorthodox,  any  one  of  them?  If  so,  state  it. 

A.  I  have  already  answered,  none,  with  the  explanation  I  have  given. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  ask  you,  if  you  are  able  to  give  any  of  them,  to  do  so. 
Taking  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  is  there  any  one  of  them  that  you 
pronounce  unorthodox,  or  heteiodox? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  understand  the  drift  of  your  questions. 
PO  I  understand  you  to  mean  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  teachings  of  the 
Creed  ? 

Q.  I  am  speaking  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  that  Church.  I  un- 
derstand you  to  say  that  there  are  heterodox  churches  in  belief.  Now, 
name  some  of  them  if  you  are  acquainted  with  them.  I  will  ask  you  to 
state  whether  or  not,  from  your  knowledge  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
this  particular  church — the  Methodist  Protestant  Church — there  is  any  one 
of  the  articles  of  faith  recognized  by  the  confessed  believers  in  that  Church 
that  you  regard  as  heterodox  ? 

A.  Not  in  those  things  which  they  teach  which  are  scripturally  essen 
tial  to  bring  men  into  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.   If  in  any  particular,  name  what  ? 

A.  Well,   my  explanation  of  this  matter,   if  I  understand   what  you 


4.4.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

want,  is  this :  In  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  bring  men  into  the 
Church  of  Christ,  there  is  great  unanimity  in  the  teachings  of  all  the  reli- 
gious denominations ;  that  is,  they  all  agree  that  when  a  sinner  has  faith  in 
Christ,  has  truly  repented  of  his  sins,  has  confessed  Christ,  and  has  been 
baptized,  he  has  a  right  to  membership  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  in 
these  matters  it  is  right  to  regard  all  of  them  as  orthodox.  If  ortho- 
doxy consists  of  the  acceptance  of  these  things,  and  heterodoxy  of  their 
rejection,  and  if  all  accept  them,  then  all  are  orthodox ;  but  of  speculative 
and  indifferent  opinions  neither  orthodoxy  nor  heterodoxy  ought  to  be  af- 
firmed, and  thus  I  prefer  to  leave  them. 

Q.  Will  you  please  be  so  kind  as  to  state  to  the  court  and  jury  what 
you  understand  to  be  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  orthodox  Christians? 

A.  Well,  I  understand  that  all  orthodox  Christians  receive  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  word  of  God,  and  as  given  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God ;  that  Jesus  is  the  world's  propitiatory  for  sin,  His  blood 
cleansing  from  sin ;  that  the  agency  for  leading  men  to  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings of  God  is  the  gospel  of  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  these  changing  the 
false  desires  of  the  heart  to  the  desire  to  live  a  holy  life;  that  to  become  a 
true  child  of  God,  and  a  member  of  his  spiritual  family,  the  Church,  the 
alien  sinner  must  make  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  must  repent  or  turn 
to  a  reformation  of  life,  must  confess  Jesus  before  men,  and  before  being 
admitted  into  the  Church  there  must  be  a  baptism  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that,  when  thus  admitted 
into  the  family  or  Church  of  God,  there  must  be  the  faithful  leading  of 
the  prayerful  and  pious  life  until  death ;  and  then,  as  a  promise  of  the 
gospel,  that  to  those  who,  by  a  faithful  continuance  in  well-doing,  have 
sought  for  glory  and  immortality,  eternal  life  will  be  bestowed  upon  them. 

Q.  Now,  do  orthodox  Christians  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  deprav- 
ity of  men  ? 

A.  -I  find  that  doctrine  in  some  of  their  creeds,  but  whether  or  not  it 
is  believed,  I  would  not  say ;  yet  the  so-called  orthodox  creeds  do  not  all 
agree  upon  this  point,  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  this  disagreement  contrib- 
utes to  the  establishment  by  each  of  the  other's  heterodoxy. 

Q.  Does  the  Christian  Church  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  depravity 
of  men  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir:  but  not  in  the  doctrine  of  "hereditary  total  depravity," 
as  found  in  some  of  the  creeds. 

Q.  The  Church  of  which  you  are  speaking  is  what  is  known  by  thr 
name  of  "Campbellite,"  and  not  "New  Light"? 

A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  does  the  Campbellite  branch  of  the  Christian  Church 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  of  a  divine  manifestation  ?  - 


Our  Orthodoxy  tn  the  Civil  Courts.  4.5 

A.  The  Church  teaches  that  Adam  originally  sinned  by  transgressing 
a  command  which  God  had  given  him  in  Eden ;  that  on  account  of  this 
transgression  (this  sin)  he  was  driven  out  of  the  garden  of  Eden,  being 
thus  separated  from  God ;  and,  on  account  of  this  separation  from  God,  he 
was  compelled  to  live  under  the  circumstances  of  sin. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  to  my  question?  Does  the  Campbellite  branch 
of  the  Christian  Church  hold  the  article  of  faith,  or  doctrine,  that  sin  has 
permeated  the  whole  human  family  by  reason  of  the  evil  of  Adam  ? 

A.  It  does  not  teach  that  the  whole  human  family  incurs  personal 
guilt,  and  thus  depravity  of  soul,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  the  fathers. 
The  fact  is  recognized  that  Adam,  after  his  transgression,  was  enveloped  in 
the  terrible  consequences  of  sin ;  that  the  children  born  to  him  were  neces- 
sarily placed,  to  a  certain  extent,  under  these  sinful  circumstances,  and 
were,  therefore,  liable  themselves  to  sin,  and  that  they  thus  work  out  their 
own  depravity. 

Q.  Does  the  Campbellite  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  hold  to  the 
doctrine  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved  without  baptism  by  immersion  ? 

A.  Will  you  please  state  your  question  again  ?  I  did  not  understand 
you. 

Q.  I  say,  does  the  Campbellite  Church  teach  that  a  man  may  be  saved 
other  than  by  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repentance,  and  being  bap- 
tized by  immersion  ? 

A.  The  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  upon  that  point  is  this,  as  I 
understand  it :  It  insists  that  the  Scriptures  teach  the  necessity  of  faith  in 
God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  repentance  or  turning  to  a  reformed 
life,  of  a  confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  of  a  baptism  into  the 
trinity  of  adorable  names;  that,  upon  the  genuine  performance  of  these 
things,  the  Scriptures  promise  salvation  from  past  sins,  and  that  outside  of 
these  things  there  is  no  promise  of  pardon.  But  the  Church  does  not  un- 
dertake to  say  what  God  can  or  what  He  will  do  outside  of  the  range  of 
His  promises ;  what  it  does  is  to  urgently  plead  with  men  to  come  within 
the  range  of  the  Scripture  promises,  contending  that  the  promises  of  God 
Are  yea  and  amen  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  what  is  the  belief  of  the  Church  upon  that  subject? 
Does  the  Campbellite  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  believe,  as  an  article 
of  faith,  that  a  man  may  be  saved  without  being  baptized  by  immersion  ? 

A.  It  has  no  such  article  of  faith  to  be  believed.  It  does  not  make 
such  things  articles  of  faith.  They  are  relegated  to  the  domain  of  opinion. 

Q,  The  members  of  the  Christian  Church  do  not  believe  that  a  man 
can  be  saved  without  immersion? 

A.  They  have  no  such  article  of  faith. 

Q.  Then  you  believe  a  man  can  be  saved  without  baptism  by 
immersion  ? 


#6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  some  men.  There  are  classes  of  men  who,  I  think,  will 
be  saved  without  immersion. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  that  is  the  doctrine  you 
taught  at  Salem  Chapel  ? 

A.  The  question  of  baptism  was  not  made  the  subject  of  discourse 
at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  sir — you  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  you  recollect 
all  the  doctrines  you  preached  at  that  church  ? 

A.  I  can  tell  you,  for — 

Q.  How? 

.-/.  I  say  I  can  tell  you,  for  I  have  a  list  of  subjects,  and  notes,  to 
which  I  can  refer. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  there  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved  without  being 
immersed  ? 

A.  I  do  not  call  to  mind  that  I  made  any  declaration  at  any  time  in 
reference  to  immersion,  for  it  is  not  particularly  in  the  line  of  any  of  the 
subjects  upon  which  I  discoursed  there. 

Q.  Is  it  not  taught  by  that  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  that  all  other 
churches  are  heterodox  in  that  they  do  not  receive  the  Bible  without  any 
comment  or  formulated  confession  of  faith  ? 

A.  The  members  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  a  rule,  do  not  bandy  the 
term  "heterodox;"  but  they  teach  with  reference  to  the  creeds — 

(An  objection  was  here  made,  but  the  question  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Does  not  that  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  to  which  you  belong 
hold  that  the  other  Christian  churches  are  not  orthodox  for  the  reason  that 
they  do  not  receive  the  Bible  without  any  comment,  as  the  ancient  church 
did,  as  the  foundation  of  their  faith,  without  the  church's  formulated  con- 
fession of  faith  ? 

A.  Well,  I  should  answer — 

(Objection  was  again  made,  but  the  question  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  ask  you  to  state — to  pay  attention 
to  that  question.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  that  branch  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  which  you  belong  don't  consider  the  other  Christian 
churches  heterodox,  or  unorthodox,  by  reason  of  them  having  accepted  as 
their  standard  of  faith  the  formulated  creed,  instead  of  the  Bible  without 
comment. 

A.  The  Church  to  which  I  belong  has  no  authoritatively  formulated 
statement  of  their  doctrine,  or  confession  of  faith,  except  the  uncommented 
Bible.  The  feeling  of  the  Church,  I  speak  of  the  membership  of  the 
Church  generally,  is  that  such  formulation  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  and 
teaching  of  the  Bible,  in — 

(Objection  was  here  made,  but  the  counsel  repeated  the  question.) 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  47 

Q.  Now,  then,  you  say,  if  I  understand  you,  that  you  regard  in  some 
sense  as  unsound,  as  related  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  that  mem- 
bers of  the  other  churches  have  creeds,  and  are  required  to  subscribe  to 
these  formulated  creeds? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  the  formulated  dogmas  of  human  creeds  are  not 
made  the  test  of  fellowship  with  the  Disciples  of  Christ. 

Q.  You  think  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  to 
make  members  of  the  Church  subscribe  to  the  creed  ? 

A.  So  far  as  an  authoritative  confession  of  faith,  or  creed,  is  concerned, 
I  think  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  You  think  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

Q.  It  is  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is  without  divine  authority,  and  is  in  conflict  with  the 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  if  it  is  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Script- 
ures for  those  churches  to  require  of  their  members  a  confession  of  ar- 
ticles of  faith  as  a  condition  to  church  membership,  will  you  have  the 
kindness  to  state  right  here  if  the  orthodox  churches,  or  their  disciplines, 
conflict  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  ? 

A.  There  are  some  things  upon  which  all  the  churches  are  agreed,  and 
there  are  some  things  upon  which  they  are  not  agreed. 

Q.  On  what  matters  do  all  the  orthodox  churches  agree  ? 

A.  Well,  upon  those  things  which   I  have  previously  enumerated. 

Q.  Will  you  state  them  again  ? 

A.  The  matter  of  faith  in  God  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  acceptance  of 
the  Scriptures  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  the  propitiatory  of  Christ,  the 
repentance  or  turning  to  a  new  life,  the  confession  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Son  of  God,  and  baptism  into  the  trinity  of  adorable  names. 

Q.  Now,  in  your  judgment,  is  it  not  an  essential  condition  of  ortho- 
doxy, and  does  not  the  Christian  Church  hold  that  baptism  by  immersion 
is  an  essential  condition  of  salvation  ? 

A.  The  Christian  Church  holds  that  there  is  no  baptism  only  by  im- 
mersion— immersion  as  baptism  has  never  been  in  debate. 

Q.  Does  not  your  Church  hold  and  teach  that  baptism  by  immersion 
is  essential  to  salvation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  to  every  man  to  whom  the  command  comes. 

Q.  Does  the  Church  hold  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  as  she  insists  upon  an  obedience  to  every  command  of 
Christ. 

Q.  Does  not  the  great  majority  of  them  teach  that  baptism  by  pouring 
and  sprinkling  is  not  sufficient? 


48  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  all  do. 

Q.  Does  the  Church  teach  that  a  man  could  be  saved  by  faith  and  re- 
pentance coupled  with  being  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  or  even 
without  being  baptized  at  all?  Would  you  receive  a  man  into  the  Church 
that  would  hold  such  a  doctrine,  or  is  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church? 

A.  The  Church  holds  that  the  Scriptures  promise  salvation  from  past 
sins  upon  the  terms  specified:  faith,  repentance,  confession,  and  baptism 
(which  is  by  immersion),  and  outside  of  the  Scripture  promise  the  Church 
has  no  teaching.  A  man  who  would  not  conform  to  the  Scripture  require- 
ments would  not  be  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Church. 

Q.  What  is  the  belief  of  your  Church  and  its  teachings  in  reference  to 
the  efficiency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  conversion  of  men  ? 

A.  It  teaches  that  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation to  every  one  that  believes. 

Q.  It  teaches  that  with  the  reading  of  the  gospel,  and  the  hearing  of 
it  expounded  by  the  preachers  as  being  God's  salvation,  men  and  women 
are  saved  by  it  ? 

A.  It  teaches  that  men  come  into  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  by  its 
being  preached  to  them,  for  "  how  shall  they  believe  on  him  of  whom  they 
have  not  heard,  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?"  But  back 
of  this  preaching  of  the  gospel  lie  the  provisions  which  God  has  made  for 
human  salvation  in  a  divine  Saviour,  and  all  the  accompaniments  of  His 
grace  and  truth  which  constitute  the  gospel  preached,  the  preaching  of 
which  urges  upon  men  the  acceptance  of  the  terms  upon  which  salvation 
is  granted. 

Q.  Is  it  the  belief  of  your  Church  that  there  is  no  divine  manifesta- 
tion to  men,  or  that  it  lies  within  a  man  to  accept  the  gospel  of  Christ  of 
his  own  volition  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is  believed  that  men  can  be  constrained  to  accept  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  through  the  persuasions  of  its  efficient  preaching. 

Q.  What  do  you  believe  as  to  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
an  instrument  in  the  conversion  of  men,  or  the  manifestation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  hearts  of  men  by  miraculous  power? 

A.  The  teaching  of  our  people  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  manifests  itself 
upon  the  hearts  of  men  in  their  conversion  through  the  instrumentalities  of 
the  Church  and  the  word  of  God.  With  these  instrumentalities  the  Spirit 
accomplishes  its  work  upon  the  minds  of  men. 

Q.  What  is  the  teaching  of  your  Church  in  reference  to  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  conversion  of  men  ? 

A.  It  teaches  that  men  are  born  again  through  the  Spirit  by  the  heart 
being  impregnated  with  incorruptible  spiritual  seed,  the  word  of  God. 
(See  I.  Peter  i.  24.)  This  word  of  God  speaks  of  the  gospel  as  being  tho 
power  of  God  unto  salvation. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  4.9 

Q.  Well,  is  that  power  from  the  influence  of  the  word  as  read  and  ex- 
pounded from  the  Bible,  or  is  it  taught  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  any  direct 
influence  upon  the  hearts  of  men  ? 

A.  Our  people  are  not  concerned  very  much  about  matters  of  this  sort. 
They  do  not  push  such  questions  to  the  front  as  being  all-important,  deem- 
ing it  wiser  to  agitate  those  things  that  involve  the  duties  of  men,  leaving 
those  things  which  belong  to  God  and  His  Spirit  to  Them,  resting  in  the 
assurance  that,  if  men  will  do  their  duties  as  respects  salvation,  God  will 
do  the  balance;  and  that,  too,  in  His  own  way. 

Q.   But  what  is  the  belief  of  your  Church  upon  that  point  ? 

A.  I  can  not  assert  any  belief  with  respect  to  it ;  it  is  held  as  an 
opinion,  just  as  all  matters  of  opinion  are  held  by  them — it  is  not  made  a 
test  of  acceptable  membership  in  the  Church.  It  is  taught,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the  Word  of  Truth. 
No  one  pretends  to  say  that  God  can  not,  by  his  Spirit,  operate  independ- 
ently of  the  truth,  neither  is  it  asserted  whether  He  does  or  does  not;  but 
it  is  continually  affirmed,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  is  the  great  gospel  of  Christ,  and  they  are  more  con- 
cerned to  have  it  preached  than  to  proclaim  their  opinions  about  the  Spirit's 
operations  independent  of  the  Word  of  Truth. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  hold  as  ks  doctrine  the  divine  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men?  What  are  the  phenomena  when 
men  are  subjected  to  that  influence  ?  What  is  your  teaching  concerning 
that? 

A.  I  can  not  give  you  an  answer  to  that  question.     I  have  no  data. 

Q.  Is  there  any  difference  in  these  operations  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
heart — is  there  any  difference  in  these  operations  upon  the  hearts  of  men 
when  placed  in  the  same  circumstances  ?  What  is  taught  in  your  Church 
upon  that? 

A.  I  know  nothing  about  any  teachings  upon  that  question. 

Q.  Is  it  taught  by  your  Church  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Word,  as  read  and  expounded,  on  the  hearts  of  different  men, 
hearing  the  same  Word  read  and  expounded  at  the  same  time  ? 

A.  I  can  not  call  to  mind  that  I  ever  read  or  heard  any  teaching  upon 
that  point. 

Q.   By  your  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  your  Church  has  any  belief 
upon  this  question.  Does  or  does  not  the  Holy  Spirit  operate  on  some 
men  differently  than  it  does  on  other  men,  or  does  the  Holy  Spirit  operate 
on  the  mind  or  heart  of  a  man  differently  at  one  time  from  what  it  does  at 
another  ? 


/o  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Well,  I  shall  have  to  repeat  my  answer ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  have 
ever  heard  any  teaching  upon  that  point. 

Q.  Is  it,  so  far  as  you  know,  the  belief  of  your  Church  that  it  would 
be  the  same  under  the  same  circumstances  surrounding  a  man — that  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Holy  Spirit,  operating  through  the  Word  as  read  and  ex- 
pounded, would  be  the  same  on  all  ? 

A.  I  can  not  answer  for  the  Church ;  I  have  not  been  instructed  upon 
that  point. 

Q.  Have  you  any  idea  upon  that  point? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  an  individual  opinion.  I  suppose  that,  if  the  cir- 
cumstances are  the  same,  and  the  condition  of  the  man  the  same,  and  the 
influence  is  the  same  in  quality  and  degree,  the  result  will  be  the  same ; 
for  the  reason  that  like  causes  produce  like  results. 

Q.  What  does  your  Church  teach  as  to  the  hearts  of  men  being  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Have  you  heard,  or  has  there  been  any 
teaching  upon  this  point  in  your  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  it? 

A.  It  is  taught  that  the  Saviour  promised  to  send  to  the  disciples  the 
Holy  Spirit  if  He  went  away,  and  that  it  would  be  an  abiding  comforter 
with  them.  It  is  taught  that  all  true  disciples  have  received  the  Spirit  as 
this  comforter  to  dwell  with  them  and  be  with  them. 

Q.  What  is  the  belief  of  your  Church  in  reference  to  the  essential 
character  and  being  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

A.  Well,  in  answering  this  question  I  can  do  no  better  than  to  read  a 
statement  of  the  matters  involved  in  it,  which  was  made  by  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  which  I  would  like  to  make  my  answer  to  this  question.  It  is  an  ex- 
tract from  the  debate  between  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  Rice,  upon  the  prop- 
osition :  "In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  per- 
sons only  through  the  Word  of  Truth."  The  extract  is  as  follows: 

"To  accomplish  this,"  speaking  of  the  bestowment  upon  men  of  an 
everlasting  righteousness,  a  perfect  holiness,  and  an  enduring  blessedness 
in  the  presence  of  God  forever  and  forever,  "a  new  manifestation  of  the 
Divinity  became  necessary.  Hence  the  development  of  a  plurality  of  ex- 
istence in  the  Divine  Nature.  The  God  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
the  Lord  God  of  the  second.  Light  advances  as  the  pages  of  human  his- 
tory multiply,  until  we  have  God,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God 
clearly  intimated  in  the  law,  the  prophets  and  the  Psalms.  But  it  was  not 
until  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  arose — till  the  Word  became  incarnate  and 
dwelt  among  us — till  we  beheld  his  glory  as  that  of  the  only  begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth ;  it  was  not  till  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had 
finished  the  work  of  atonement  on  the  hill  of  Calvary — till  he  had  brought 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  51 

life  and  immortality  to  light,  by  his  revival  and  resurrection  from  the  sealed 
sepulcher  of  the  Arimathean  senator ;  it  was  not  till  he  gave  a  commission 
to  convert  the  whole  world,  that  the  development  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  fully  stated  and  completed.  Since  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  birthday  of  Christ's  Church — since  the 
glorious  immersion  of  the  three  thousand  triumphs  of  the  memorable  Pen- 
tecost, the  Church  has  enjoyed  the  mysteries  and  sublime  light  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  one  Divinity,  manifest- 
ing itself  in  three  incomprehensible  relations,  in  order  to  effect  the  com- 
plete recovery  and  perfect  redemption  of  man  from  the  guilt,  the  pollution, 
the  power,  and  the  punishment  of  sin. 

"No  one,  Mr.  President,  believes  more  firmly  than  I,  and  no  one,  I 
presume,  endeavors  to  preach  more  distinctly  and  comprehensively  than  I, 
this  mysterious,  sublime  and  incomprehensible  plurality  and  unity  of  the 
Godhead.  It  is  a  relation  that  may  be  apprehended  by  all,  though  com- 
prehended by  none.  It  has  its  insuperable  necessity  in  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  universe.  Without  it,  no  one  can  believe  in,  or  be  reconciled 
to  the  remedial  policy,  as  developed  in  the  apostolic  writings.  And,  sir,  I 
have  no  more  faith  in  any  man's  profession  of  religion,  than  I  have  in  the 
sincerity  of  Mahomet,  who  does  not  believe  in  the  Father,  and  in  the  Son, 
and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  as  cooperating  in  the  illumination,  pardon  and 
sanctification  of  fallen,  sinful  and  degraded  man.  While,  then,  I  repudi- 
ate, with  all  my  heart,  the  scholastic  jargon  of  the  Arian,  Unitarian,  and 
Trinitarian  hypotheses,  I  stand  up  before  heaven  and  earth  in  defense  of 
the  sacred  style — in  the  fair,  full  and  perfect  comprehension  of  all  its  words 
and  sentences,  according  to  the  canons  of  a  sound,  exegetical  interpreta- 
tion. I  would  not,  sir,  value  at  the  price  of  a  single  mill  the  religion 
of  any  man,  as  respects  the  grand  affair  of  eternal  life,  whose  religion  is  not 
begun,  carried  on,  and  completed  by  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Nay,  sir,  I  esteem  it  the  peculiar  excellence  and  glory  of  our  re- 
ligion, that  it  is  spiritual;  that  the  soul  of  man  is  quickened,  enlightened, 
sanctified,  and  consoled  by  the  indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
eternal  God." 

Here  the  witness  was  interrupted  by  the  counsel,  who  said : 

Q.  Now,  svhen  you  have  finished,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question 
with  reference  to  that. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  or  not  the  trinity  is  one  of  the 
doctrines  of  your  Church ;  is  there  a  denial  of  the  trinitarian  belief  or 
doctrine  ? 

A.  Some  of  the  scholastic  phases  of  that  doctrine  are  not  believed,, 
but  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  is  believed; 


$2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

yet  this,  as  well  as  all  other  Bible  teachings,  is  left  undisturbed,  as  to  its 
formulated  statement,  as  it  is  found  in  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Then,  I  will  ask  you,  do  all  the  Unitarians  and  Trinitarians  believe 
in  a  heaven  and  an  earth  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures? 

A.   I  can  not  answer,  but  presume  they  do. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  or  not  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
trinity,  as  generally  received  by  other  Christian  churches,  is  a  fundamental 
doctrine  and  belief  in  your  Church  ? 

A.  I  must  answer  your  question  by  saying :  The  Church  believes  in 
the  trinity  as  unfolded  and  stated  in  the  Scriptures— to  whether  or  not  that 
corresponds  precisely  with  the  various  notions  and  explanations  which  men 
have  set  forth,  we  pay  but  little  regard. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  teach  the  being  and  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  Holy  Ghost? 

A.  I  think  I  read  that  in  my  extract  from  Mr.  Campbell ;  no,  I  did 
not  read  it,  I  would  have  read  it. 

Q.  What  is  the  belief  of  your  Church  as  to  the  being  and  personality 
of  God? 

A.  It  believes  in  the  personal  existence  of  God,  and  in  the  manifesta- 
tions of  divinity  as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Well,  does  your  Church  believe  that  there  are  three  persons  or  be- 
ings in  the  Godhead  ? 

A.  As  to  this  question,  I  can  not  answer ;  for  I  have  never  heard  that 
question  discussed  among  them. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  certain  doctrines.  I  ask  you 
whether  or  not  the  doctrines  which  the  Presbyterians  teach,  in  your  judg- 
ment, are  orthodox  doctrines?  Does  your  Church  believe  that  the  sins  of 
the  father  are  visited  upon  the  child,  and  that  man  is  naturally  sinful  and 
totally  depraved  ? 

A.  The  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  I  have  before  an- 
swered, wherein  they  conform  to  the  Scripture  teaching  as  to  the  things 
necessary  to  bring  a  man  into  the  Church,  and  keep  him  there,  whereby  he 
receives  the  present  and  eternal  salvation,  I  should  say  were  orthodox ;  but 
wherein  they  are  the  deductions  of  scholastic  and  speculative  theology, 
they  are  of  so  little  true  value  that  neither  orthodoxy  nor  heterodoxy  ought 
to  be  associated  with  them — they  ought  to  be  relegated  to  the  realm  of 
opinion,  and  allowed  to  rest  there.  The  Christian  Church  does  not  teach 
that  the  guilt  of  the  father's  sins  is  visited  upon  the  children,  though  it 
recognizes  the  fact  that  the  consequent  circumstances  of  the  father's  sins 
envelop  the  children ;  neither  does  it  teach  that  man  is  naturally  sinful 
and  totally  depraved. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  hold  or  believe,  as  an  article  of  faith,  that  by 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  53 

the  sins  of  Adam  all  men  are  rendered  sinful,  or  does  your  Church  hold 
that  all  men  are  entirely  depraved  ? 

A.  I  have  just  answered  that  it  does  not.  While  it  does  not  make 
these  things  articles  of  dogmatic  faith,  yet  I  believe  that  it  is  not  generally 
accepted  that  the  taint  of  Adam's  guilt  was  communicated  to  his  children ; 
but  being  born  under  the  conditions  and  circumstances  incident  to  a  state 
of  sin,  they  are  liable  to  sin  themselves,  and  thus  become  sinful.  Hence  it 
is  not  taught  that  men  are  entirely  depraved. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  hold  that  in  the  other  world  men  will  be  per- 
mitted to  dwell  with  God,  and  that  they  will  be  held  accountable  for  their 
actions? 

A.  It  is  one  of  the  blessed  promises  of  the  gospel,  which  they  so  love 
to  preach,  that  we  shall  be  permitted  to  dwell  in  the  presence  of  God  in 
"  the  land  beyond."  It  is  presumed  that  all  moral  beings  will  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  their  actions  in  all  time. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  teach  as  one  of  its  doctrines,  and  accept  the  in- 
spiration of  the  apostles  in  the  plan  of  redemption  for  sinful  men? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  unquestioned  authority  of  the  apostles  in  matters  of 
redemption  is  one  of  the  cardinal  things  upon  which  they  insist. 

Q.  And  in  the  development  of  the  plan  of  redemption  the  Divinity 
was  made  manifest  to  His  creatures  as  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  that  these  three,  which  partake  of  all  the  attributes  of  God,  are  en- 
titled to  receive  divine  worship,  and  constitute  the  only  real  and  true  God? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  that  men  are  justified  by  faith? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  hold  in  your  Church  that  this  faith  results  in  a  holy  life 
and  salvation? 

A.  It  is  held  that  faith  is  a  principle  which  produces  action ;  that  in 
the  line  of  a  holy  life  and  salvation  the  actions  which  it  produces,  or  which 
spring  up  at  its  behest,  are  repentance,  confession,  and  baptism ;  these  acts 
are  tests  of  faith,  and  bring  one  to  justification  from  the  sins  of  the  past; 
these  are  followed  by  other  faithful  acts,  the  deeds  of  piety  and  prayer, 
which  lead  on  through  holy  life  to  the  final  salvation.  Thus  faith  is  the 
motor  which  moves  the  activities  and  instigates  the  deeds  which  determine 
the  outcome  of  life. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  ? 

A.  Well,  with  the  explanation  I  have  just  given,  I  do. 

Q.  Well,  the  question  calls  for  an  answer,  yes  or  no. 

A.  In  accordance  with  the  explanation,  yes ;  otherwise,  no. 

Q.  Then,  from  the  form  of  your  answer,  you  do  not  receive,  or  you 
would  not  accept,  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  ? 


S4  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  do  not,  only  in  accordance  with  the  explanation. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  teach  a  universal  salvation,  and  that  men  to  a 
certain  degree  are  responsible  for  their  actions  ? 

A.  Will  you  please  repeat  your  question  ? 

Q.  I  say,  does  your  Church  teach  a  universal  salvation,  or  that  per- 
sons to  a  certain  degree  are  responsible  for  their  actions  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  the  salvation^  prepared  in  God's  redemption  is  ex- 
tensive enough  to  include  all  men  ;  but,  they  being  responsible  for  their 
deeds,  this  salvation  is  available  only  to  those  who  truly  and  sufficiently 
accept  it. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  atonement  in  your  Church  ? 

A.  The  sacrifice  which  was  made  by  Christ  for  sin ;  that  which  He  did 
by  which  sinful  men  and  a  holy  God  can  be  made  at  one.  The  sacrifice 
which  Christ  made  of  Himself  because  of  the  sin  of  men.  Perhaps  I  had 
better  further  explain.  It  is  taught  that  faith  results  in  a  man  turning  to 
God ;  that  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  in  the  atonement  for  man's  sins,  his  dis- 
abilities are  taken  away,  and  therefore  he  may  finally  be  brought  into  the 
presence  of  God  to  enjoy  Him  forever;  that  all  this  is  accomplished 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  that  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  it 
sufficient? 

A.  It  is  sufficient  to  call  forth  the  activities  of  men. 

Q.  Is  it  sufficient  to  secure  salvation  ? 

A.  It  causes  men  to  turn  to  salvation. 

Q.  To  turn  to  salvation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  but  it  is  not  taught  that  it  will  secure  salvation  only  in 
that  that  faith  in  God  will  call  forth  and  develop  the  elements  of  a  Chris- 
tian character. 

Q.  Now,  then,  repentance  of  sin,  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Saviour  of  the  world — what  other  essential  elements  does  your  Church  re- 
gard as  necessary  to  salvation — that  a  man  may  be  saved  ? 

A.  Do  you  mean  the  elements  necessary  to  salvation  ? 

Q.  The  elements  necessary  to  salvation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  Church  regards  as  necessary  to  salvation  an  obedi- 
ence to  all  things  involved  in  the  Saviour's  command  to  His  disciples  in  the 
great  commission.  The  Saviour  commanded  His  disciples  to  go  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  requiring 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  commanded  them.  This  is 
the  commission  which'Jesus  gave  to  the  apostles.  In  the  fulfillment  of  this 
commission,  in  remaining  faithful  in  these  things,  there  is  secured  the 
promise  of  salvation  both  from  past  sins  and  in  the  life  to  come ;  all  of 
these  things  it  regards  as  necessary  to  salvation. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  jj 

Q.  Your  Church,  then,  does  not  believe  that  a  man  may  be  saved  by 
repentance  and  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  will  repeat  my  question : 
Do  you  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  by  a  living  faith. 

Q.    That  men  may  be  justified  or  made  just  with  God  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  How  is  this?  If  that  can  be  done,  if  by  faith  men  are  justified, 
why  do  you  assume  that  without  baptism  any  would  be  lost  ? 

A.  Faith,  as  already  .explained,  is  a  principle  which  involves  action ; 
baptism  is  a  faith  act ;  where  the  faith  acts  are  wanting,  the  faith  itself, 
which  justifies,  is  wanting. 

Q.  You  thiiik,  then,  in  your  Church,  that  a  man  is  justified — that  and 
nothing  more.  Well,  do  you  think  a  man  thus  justified  would  be  in  a  con- 
dition to  receive  the  Saviour? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  1  think  he  would. 

Q.  Are  there  sny  other  conditions  by  which  he  obtains  pardon — that 
is,  by  prayer,  or  anything  of  that  kind  ? 

A.  It  is  taught  that  by  a  living  faith  a  sinner  is  justified  and  brought 
into  relations  of  justification  with  God;  then  after  these  relations  are 
established,  the  efficacy  of  prayer  and  confession  to  secure  pardon  is 
taught. 

Q.  Are  there  any  otli«r  commandments  prescribed  or  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures? 

A.  There  are  the  practical  duties  of  Christian  life. 

Q.  These  are  all  that  *re  essential  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  all  that  1  nave  spoken  of  in  my  answers. 

Q.  Does  God  work  m  the  same  way  now;  does  he  accomplish  his 
purposes  in  respect  to  persons  through  this  power  of  faith  and  these 
works  ? 

A.  It  is  taught  that  God,  and  the  faith  which  permits  Him  to  dwell  in 
the  heart,  are  manifest  through  works. 

Q.  And  that  faith  alone,  not  accompanied  with  all  these  things,  does 
not  save  from  sin  ? 

A.  Upon  this  point  the  Church  teaches  what  the  Apostle  James  has 
taught  that  "  faith  without  works  is  dead." 

Q.  That  faith  alone  is  dead  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Reexamination  by  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  I  will  ask  you  if  the  Christian  Church  teaches  that 
baptism  without  a  previous  change  of  heart  is  available  ? 
A.  It  does  not. 


j<5  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Ctvil  Courts. 

Counsel  for  the  plaintiff  here  asked  that  the  witness  be  allowed  to  read 
the  balance  of  the  extract  that  was  commenced  on  the  cross-examination. 
Permission  being  granted,  the  witness  read  as  follows,  from  page  616, 
Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate  : 

.  .  .  "  But  while  avowing  these  my  convictions,  1  have  no  more 
fellowship  with  these  false  and  pernicious  theories  that  confound  the  pe- 
culiar work  of  the  Father  with  that  of  the  Son,  or  with  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  or  the  work  of  any  of  these  awful  names  with  that  of  another;  or 
which  represents  our  illumination,  conversion,  and  sanctification  as  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  without  knowledge,  belief,  ami  obedience  of  the  gospel, 
as  written  by  the  holy  apostles  and  evangelists,  than  I  have  with  the  author 
and  finisher  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

"The  revelation  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  is  not  more  clear  and 
distinct  than  are  the  different  offices  assumed  and  performed  by  these  glo- 
rious and  ineffable  Three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe.  It  is  true, 
so  far  as  unity  of  design  and  concurrence  of  action  is  contemplated,  they 
cooperate  in  every  work  of  creation,  providence,  and  redemption.  Such 
is  the  concurrence  expressed  by  the  Messiah  in  these  words,  "My  Father 
worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work;"  "land  my  Father  are  one;"  "Whatso- 
ever the  Father  doeth,  the  Son  doeth  likewise ;"  but  not  such  a  concur- 
rence as  annuls  personality,  impairs  or  interferes  with  the  distinct  offices  of 
each  in  the  salvation  of  man.  For  example,  the  Father  sends  his  Son,  not 
the  Son  his  Father.  The  Father  provides  a  body  and  a  soul  for  his  Son, 
and  not  the  Son  for  his  Father.  The  Son  offers  up  that  body  and  soul  for 
sin,  and  thus  expiates  it,  which  the  Father  does  not,  but  accepts  it.  The 
Father  and  the  Son  send  forth  the  Spirit,  and  not  the  Spirit  either.  The 
Spirit  now  advocates  Christ's  cause,  and  not  Christ  his  own  cause.  The 
Holy  Spirit  now  animates  the  Church  with  his  presence,  and  not  Christ 
himself.  He  is  the  head  of  the  Church,  while  the  Spirit  is  the  heart  of  it. 
The  Father  originates  all,  the  Son  executes  all,  the  Spirit  consummates  all. 
Eternal  volition,  design,  and  mission  belong  to  the  Father,  reconciliation 
to  the  Son,  sanctification  to  the  Spirit.  In  each  of  these  terms  there  are 
numerous  terms  and  ideas  of  subordinate  extent,  to  which  we  can  not  now 
advert.  At  present,  we  consider  the  subject  in  its  general  character,  and 
not  in  its  particular  details. 

"  In  the  distribution  of  official  agency,  as  it  presents  itself  to  our  ap- 
prehension, with  reference  to  the  subject  before  us,  we  regard  the  benevo- 
lent designs  and  plan  of  man's  redemption  as  originating  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Divine  Father;  the  atonement,  or  sacrificial  ransom,  as  the  peculiar 
work  of  the  Messiah ;  and  the  advocacy  of  His  cause,  in  accomplishing  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  the  world,  the  peculiar  mission  and  office 
of  the  Holy  Spirit" 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  5? 

Q.  Mr.  Edwards,  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian 
Church,  as  a  society,  believes  in  Jesus  Christ  and  His  divine  institutions? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  does. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  it  takes  Christ  as  the  only  head  of  the  Church, 
and  the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  conduct. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  does. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Church  teaches  that  a  person  who  love* 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  obeys  the  gospel  of  our  Saviour,  ought  to  be 
deprived  of  church  membership  ? 

A.  It  teaches  that  he  ought  not  to  be  thus  deprived. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  any  man,  who  is  generally  right  in  those  matters 
of  the  Church,  but  who  expresses  an  uncommon  opinion  in  the  minor 
matters,  would  be  accepted  as  a  member? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  would  be.  The  strictest  conformity  is  urged  to  the 
positive  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  the  widest  latitude  is  allowed  in  the 
indifferent  things  of  opinion. 

Q.  That  is  all. 


CHAPTER  V. 

SECTION  II. 

TESTIMONY   OF   REV.  B.  POST. 

Rev.  B.  Post,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn, 
testified  as  follows: 

Examination  in  Chief. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  I  believe  you  are   pastor  of  the  defendant  Church,  the 
defendant  corporation,  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  occupied  that  position  ? 

A.  Since  last  October. 

Q.  The  first  of  October  last  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  I  will  ask:     Are  you  acquainted  with  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  your  Church,  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  t 

A.  Somewhat. 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  practices  and  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church? 

A.  Well,  somewhat ;  I  am  not  fully  conversant  with  them. 

Q.  How   have   you   gained  your  knowledge  of   the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  Church  ? 

A.  By  reading  their  history,  and  somewhat  by  observation. 

Q.  What  history  do  you  refer  to  when  you  speak  of  their  history? 

A.  Well,  I  refer  to  Jeter's  history  and  exposition  of  Campbellism. 

Q.  Jeter? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  denomination  does  he  belong  to? 

A.  The  Baptist,  I  suppose. 

Q.  The  Baptist  denomination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  he  is  not  a  member  of  the  Christian  denomination? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  To  what  other  histories  do  you  refer  ? 

A.  Alexander  Campbell's  recent  work. 
58 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  59 

Q.  To  what  do  you  refer  when  you  speak  of  Alexander  Campbell's 
recent  work  ? 

•4.  The  Christian  System. 

Q.  Have  you  read  the  book  ? 

A.  I  have  read  sketches. 

Q.  You  have  n't  read  it  clear  through? 

A.  Not  entirely. 

Q.  When  was  that  book  published  ? 

A.   I  can't  remember  that. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  it? 

A.  I  think  about  the  first  of  January,  perhaps  a  little  later. 

Q.  The  first  of  January? 

A.   Perhaps  a  little  later. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  will  you  tell  us  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"orthodoxy  "  ? 

A.   Sound  in  Christian  faith,  as  I  understand  it. 

Q.  Sound  in  Christian  faith  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  your  opinion,  what  is  essential  to  orthodoxy  in  religious  denom- 
inations? 

A.   First,  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Person. 

Q.  Well? 

A.  It  is  essential,  and  we  require  of  the  members  of  our  Church  a 
faith  in  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  as  it  is  generally  admitted. 

Q.  Well,  what  next? 

A.  A  faith  in  the  material  Godhead. 

Q.  What  next  ? 

A.  A  faith  in  the  personality  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  and 
in  their  operations. 

Q.  Well,  what  next? 

A.  A  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

Q.  What  else? 

A.  Repentance. 

Q.  What  next  ? 

A.  Faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour. 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  These,  perhaps,  are  the  principal  points  I  would  make. 

Q.  Then  you  would  regard  as  orthodox  the  denomination,  or  denomi- 
nations, which  has,  1st,  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Person  and  a 
belief  in  the  trinity  ;  2nd,  if  they  believe  in  the  personality  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit ;  3d,  if  they  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement 
of  Christ;  4th,  if  they  believe  in  repentance  of  their  past  sins;  and  5th,  if 


60  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

they  have  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour ;  now,  these  constitute  your  defini- 
tion of  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  principally. 

Q.  A  belief  in  the  personality  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  Is 
there  anything  else  you  desire  to  add  ? 

A.  A  belief  in  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit — I  believe  I  added 
that. 

Q.  Now,  that,  you  say,  constitutes  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  Perhaps  not  entirely,  but  those  are  the  principal  things  involved  in 
orthodoxy. 

Q.  Well,  if  any  denomination  believes  them,  and  practices  them,  you 
would  regard  it  as  an  orthodox  denomination  ? 

A.  If  it  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  in  its  full  meaning. 

Q.  Well,  you  do  not  mean  to  make  that  item  alone  the  test  of  ortho- 
doxy, do  you? 

A.  Principally — not  alone — it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  principles. 

Q.  One  of  the  fundamental  principles?  and  these  other  things  you 
have  stated  would  have  to  enter  into  the  principles  of  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  I  would  consider  them  essential — I  would  consider  them  essential 
to  the  doctrine. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  Divine  Personality? 

(Objection  was  made  to  this  question.) 

Q.  Is  that  what  you  mean  by  the  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  understand  a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Personality  to  imply  a 
Scriptural  belief  in  the  Godhead. 

Q.  A  scriptural  belief  in  the  Godhead  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  one? 

A.  Three  persons  in  one  Godhead,  all  equal  in  power,  authority,  and 
glory. 

Q.  Then  that  constitutes  it,  does  it  ?  What  scriptures  do  you  refer  to 
when  you  speak  of  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  The  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  principally. 

Q.  Can  you  give  a  passage  in  the  New  Testament  scriptures  to  which 
you  refer  ? 

A.  Well,  I  would  say  as  to  that  what  Christ  said,  "I  and  my  Father 
are  one."  That  is  the  first  passage  I  would  quote.  That  would  go  to  show 
the  unity  of  the  Godhead. 

Q.  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one  "  ?     Now,  what  others? 

A.  Well,  He  says,  in  speaking  of  His  disciples,  "If  I  go  away  I  will 
send  a  Comforter,"  referring  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  He  said,  "  He  will 
abide  with  you,"  speaking  to  the  disciples. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  61 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  He  was  to  bring  them  a  witness  by  that  appearance  ( I  speak  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  renewer  and  sanctifier),  and  through  this  they  were  to  test 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Well,  I  am  now  asking  principally  for  the  passages  of  scripture  to 
which  you  refer  ? 

A.  Well,  perhaps  I  am  not  able  to  recall  them  at  first.  The  best  way 
to  get  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament  is  to  read  them. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is? 

A.  It  is  three  personalities,  all  of  equal  power,  authority,  and  glory, 
and  which  consists  of  the  creating  and  preserving  power  of  the  universe, 
as  I  understand  it,  in  the  provision  of  His  works. 

Q.  Well,  is  that  the  definition  you  first  gave  of  the  trinity,  or  the  doc- 
trine of  the  trinity? 

A.  Perhaps  I  could  make  it  more  elaborate. 

Q.  Well,  1  want  to  know  if  you  desire  to  accept  the  definition  as  your 
belief  ? 

A.  Of  the  trinity  or  Godhead,  is  that  what  you  mean  ? 

Q.  The  doctrine  of  the  trinity  as  you  spoke  of  it  ? 

A.  I  think  that  embraces  the  main  points. 

Q.  The  main  points? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  to  me  they  do. 

Q.  Well,  now  then,  if  a  person  believes  in  the  statement  you  have 
just  made  as  expressing  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  you  would  consider 
him  orthodox  in  that  respect? 

A.  In  that  respect. 

Q.  Now,  if  a  candidate  expresses  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  trin- 
ity as  you  have  defined  it,  the  personalities  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  and  believes  in  the  efficacy  and  control  of  Christ,  and  repents,  and 
believes  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour,  would  you  admit  him  to  your  Church  ? 

A.  Upon  a  profession  of  his  faith  in  that  doctrine,  I  would. 

Q.  Would  you  admit  him  into  your  Church  without  baptism  ? 

A.  I  would,  if  he  was  satisfied  upon  that  point  without  that  condi- 
tion ;  if  not,  I  should  attend  to  that  ordinance. 

Q.  Is  not  baptism  one  of  the  requisites  to  the  admission  of  members 
into  your  Church? 

A.  It  is  really  a  prerequisite  with  regard  to  Christian  duty — we  do 
not  make  it  a  prerequisite  to  all  admissions — we  do  not  always  make  it  a 
prerequisite  to  the  admission  of  them. 

Q.  You  admit  them,  then,  on  probation,  the  same  as  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 


62  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  You  regard  the  sinner  as  on  trial,  do  you  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  regard  a  church  as  orthodox,  Mr.  Post,  that  did  not  ac- 
cept the  rite  of  baptism  of  the  sinner,  or  would  not  administer  it  to  those 
persons  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would  regard  it  as  orthodox. 

.      Q.  Do  you  require,  or  does  your  Church  require,  or  believe  in  baptism 
as  necessary  to  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth  ? 

A.  Baptism  is  the  result  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  heart,  or  rather 
a  sign  of  that  work. 

Q.  A  sign  of  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  the  result,  or  a  sign? 

A.  A  sign  of  the  work  of  Cnrist  in  the  heart. 

Q.  What  are  the  conditions  required  of  those  who  apply  after  proba- 
tion to  obtain  membership  in  your  Church  ? 

A.  A  desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  an  acceptance  of  the 
blood  of  the  Lord,  and  a  willingness  to  do  the  duties  He  laid  down  in  the 
Word. 

Q.  Does  or  does  not  your  Church  regard  this  one  of  the  elements,  or 
principles,  and  a  part  of  its  constitution  as  a  Christian  church,  a  belief  in 
Christ  and  the  divineness  of  His  institutions? 

A.  Oh !  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Second,  that  Christ  is  the  only  Head  of  the  Church,  and  His  Word 
the  only  Word  for  its  guide  ? 

A.  Oh!  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Third,  that  if  a  person  loves  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  he  ought  to  be 
admitted  to  church  membership? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Fourth,  that  every  man  is  entitled  to  the  free  expression  of  an  opin- 
ion that  does  not  conflict  with  the  laws  and  notions  in  the  main  ? 

A.  I  accept  that  fully? 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  indorse  this  doctrine  as  orthodox 
doctrine:  "The  revelation  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  is  not  more 
clear  and  distinct  than  are  the  different  offices  assumed  and  performed  by 
these  glorious  and  ineffable  Three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe. 
It  is  true,  so  far  as  unity  of  design  and  concurrence  of  action  are  conttm- 
plated,  they  cooperate  in  every  work  of  creation,  providence  and  redemp- 
tion." (Campbell  and  If  ice,  p.  616.)  Do  you  approve  of  that  doctrine  7 

A.  In  the  main,  I  do. 

Q.  How  is  that,  sir  ? 

A.   In  the  main,  I  do. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  63 

Q.  What  exceptions  do  you  make? 

A.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  the  Father  began  to  create — the  expres- 
sion is  not  quite  complete. 

Q.  Not  complete  ? 

A.  Well,  I  think  possibly  the  word  Son  ought  to  be  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit ;  I  think  they  are  instrumental  in  the  work  as  well. 

Q.  You  are  satisfied  upon  that  ?  That  He  began  His  creation  by  the 
personal  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  far  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  concerned  ? 

A.  So  fai  as  it  is  concerned. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  this  doctrine  :  "  Such  is  the  concurrence  expressed 
oy  the  Messiah  in  these  words — 'My  Father  worketh hitherto,  and  I  work,' 
'  I  and  my  Father  are  one,'  '  Whatsoever  the  Father  doeth,  the  Son  doeth 
likewise;'  but  not  such  a  concurrence  as  annuls  personality,  impairs  or  in- 
terferes with  the  distinct  offices  of  each  in  the  salvation  of  man.  For  ex- 
ample: The  Father  sends  his  Son,  and  not  the  Son  the  Father.  The 
Father  provides  a  body  and  a  soul  for  the  Son,  and  not  the  Son  for  the 
Father.  The  Son  offers  up  that  body  and  soul  for  sin,  and  thus  expiates 
it,  which  the  Father  does  not,  but  accepts  it.  The  Father  and  Son  send 
forth  the  Spirit,  and  not  the  Spirit  either.  The  Spirit  now  advocates 
Christ's  cause,  and  not  Christ  his  own  cause.  The  Holy  Spirit  now  ani- 
mates the  Church  with  his  presence,  and  not  Christ  himself.  He  is  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  while  the  Spirit  is  the  heart  of  it.  The  Father  origi- 
nates all,  the  Son  executes  all,  the  Spirit  consummates  all.  Eternal  voli- 
tion, design,  and  mission  belong  to  the  Father ;  reconciliation  to  the  Son ; 
sanctification  to  the  Spirit"?  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  6/6.)  Do  you  be- 
lieve that? 

A.  If  I  understand  it,  I  do. 

Q.   How  is  that  ? 

A.  If  I  understand  it,  I  do.     Please  read  a  iittle  louder. 

Q   Well,  that  is  good  trinitarian  doctrine,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Post  ? 

A.   Principally,  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  You  say  principally ;  is  there  anything  in  that  that  you  can  charac- 
terize as  not  being  trinitarian  doctrine? 

A.  The  whole  world  being  created  by  the  efficacy  of  the  Spirit,  I 
would  not  fully  indorse. 

Q.  I  have  not  stated  it  in  that  light — if  I  have,  it  is  certainly  a 
mistake. 

A.   I  said  I  could  not  understand. 

Q.  I  will  read  again:  "To  accomplish  this  a  new  manifestation  of 
the  divinity  became  necessary.  Hence  the  development  of  a  plurality  of 
existence  in  the  Divine  Nature.  The  God  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is 
the  Lord  God  of  the  second.  Light  advances  as  the  pages  of  human  his- 


6{  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

tory  multiply,  until  we  have  God,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  Go** 
clearly  intimated  in  the  law,  the  prophets  and  the  Psalms.  But  it  was  rot 
until  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  arose — till  the  Word  became  incarnate  and 
dwelt  among  us — till  we  beheld  his  glory  as  that  of  the  Only  Begotten  of 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth ;  it  was  not  till  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had 
finished  the  work  of  atonement  on  the  hill  of  Calvary — till  he  had  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light,  by  his  revival  and  resurrection  from  the  sealed 
sepnlcher  of  the  Arimathean  senator ;  it  was  not  till  he  gave  a  commission 
to  convert  the  whole  world,  that  the  development  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  fully  stated  and  completed.  Since  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  birthday  of  Christ's  Church — since  the 
glorious  immersion  of  the  three  thousand  triumphs  of  the  memorable  Pen- 
tecost, the  Church  has  enjoyed  the  mysteries  and  sublime  light  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  one  Divinity,  manifest- 
ing itself  in  these  incomprehensible  relations,  in  order  to  effect  the  com« 
plete  recovery  and  perfect  redemption  of  man  from  the  guilt,  the  pollution, 
the  power,  and  the  punishment  of  sin. 

"No  one,  Mr.  President,  believes  more  firmly  than  I,  and  no  one,  1 
presume,  endeavors  to  preach  more  distinctly  and  comprehensively  than  I. 
this  mysterious,  sublime  and  incomprehensible  plurality  and  unity  in  the 
Godhead.  It  is  a  relation  that  may  be  apprehended  by  all,  though  com. 
prehended  by  none."  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  615.)  How  is  that? 

A,  Well,  I  think  in  the  main  that  is  good  doctrine 

Q.  Well,  you  say  in  the  main ;  what  exception  would  you  make  ? 

A.  Well,  the  first  part  of  the  statement,  as  I  understand  it,  says  thai 
God  is  a  unity  in  glory,  stature,  and  power,  and  that  His  glory  was  made 
manifest  by  the  Son  and  Spirit;  this  I  would  accept,  but  I  do  not  agree  in 
the  position  in  relation  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  The  statement  that  the  Father  was  made  manifest  by  these  two 
Persons — do  you  believe  that  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  That  the  Father  is  one,  and  that  the  Son  and  Hcly  Spirit  in  the. 
union  are  combined  in  the  work  of  remission,  and  they  are  one? 

A.  Well,  I  believe  they  were  combined  in  the  work  of  temiasion. 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  Still,  I  believe  there  is  a  Divine  Quality. 

Q.  In  the  language  of  the  Saviour,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one" — n 
that  your  understanding? 

A.  Well,  I  would  include  the  Holy  Spirit  as  well. 

Q.  The  union  of  God  and  Son  in  the  Saviour? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  suppose  it  is. 

Q.  That,  of  course,  you  say  you  accept  as  authoritative  r* 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  65 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  read  you  this,  and  see  if  you  are  willing  to  consent  to  thii 
doctrine :  "I  do,  sir,  most  sincerely  regard  the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  author 
of  every  spiritual  and  noble  desire  in  the  human  heart ;  the  author  of 
every  pious  affection,  of  every  holy  aspiration  of  our  souls.  His  mysteri- 
ous but  certain  power  is  in  and  with  the  gospel,  and  He  makes  it  the  power 
of  God  to  ev6ry  one  that  believes  it.  He  sanctifies  us  through  the  truth. 
He  works  in  us  by  it  to  will  and  do  of  his  good  pleasure.  He  is  the  Spirit 
of  grace,  because  he  is  the  Spirit  of  truth."  (Campbell  and  Rice, p.  701,) 
Do  you  consent  to  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  consent  to  the  following  doctrine:  "  I  believe  and  teach 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  the  influences  and  effects  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  the  hearts  of  all  Christians,  both  men  and  women.  The  man  who  rep- 
resents me  as  opposed  to  a  spiritual  religion,  and  the  operations,  convert- 
ing and  sanctifying,  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  does  me  the  highest  injustice,  and 
blasphemes  my  good  name  in  a  way  he  must  answer  for  in  a  higher  tri- 
bunal. I  have  long  been  endeavoring  to  draw  the  proper  lines  between  a 
wild  enthusiasm  and  a  true  Spirit  of  our  God — between  what  is  spiritual  and 
animal  in  some  of  the  present  forms  of  Christianity ;  and  to  save  my  con- 
temporaries from  a  religion  of  blind  impulses,  animal  excitements,  and 
new  revelations,  by  which  I  most  sincerely  believe  vast  multitudes  are  de- 
luded to  everlasting  ruin.  With  Paul,  and  with  me,  there  is  but  one  body 
and  but  one  Spirit,  as  there  is  but  one  hope  of  our  calling — as  there  is  but 
one  God  and  Father  of  us  all."  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  751.) 

A.  I  indorse  that. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Post,  a  man  who  believes  in  that  doctrine,  isn't  he 
orthodox? 

A.  So  far  as  that  goes. 

Q.  Now,  what  constitutes  orthodoxy,  so  far  as  it  goes? 

A.  I  think  there  is  a  literal  quality  of  the  Divine  Person — I  do  not 
think  it  is  perfectly  clear. 

Q.  Wherein? 

A.  In  the  same  you  read. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  find  that  in  the  passages  which  say,  "The  Father  and 
Son  are  one,"  and  "I  and  the  Father  are  one"?  You  do  not  find  any- 
thing in  the  last  passage  I  read  to  indicate  that  the  Father  and  the  Spirit 
ire  not  one,  and  that  they  are  not  equal,  more  than  you  do  in  those,  do 
you? 

A.  Well,  in  appearance,  I  do  not  think  I  do. 

Q.  Can  you  quote  any  particular  passage  of  Scripture  which  teaches 
the  literal  quality  of  the  Divine  Person  to  which  you  allude  ? 


66  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Chril  Courts. 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  can  designate  one  specifically. 

Q.  Can  you  quote  any  passage  of  Scripture  which  states  that  the  Father, 
and  Son,  and  Spirit  are  one  in  quality,  uniformity,  and  glory? 

A.  Well,  I  am  not  able  to  just  call  one  to  mind.  I  do  not  recollect 
any  at  present. 

Q.  You  could  not  state  any  of  them  ? 

A.  My  memory  is  treacherous  in  these  phases. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  would  you,  or  would  you  not,  believe  a  man  was  orthodox 
if  he  believed  in  baptism  by  immersion?- 

A.  That  would  depend  upon  whether  or  not  he  accepted  the  other 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church — I  would  not  criticise  a 
man  for  that. 

Q.  If  a  man  accepted  the  other  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  he  did  not  ask  for  baptism,  or  he  did  not  believe  in  baptism 
at  all,  you  would  not  reject  him  on  account  of  baptism  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  a  man  believes  in  the  doctrines  I  have  stated,  and  accepts 
them  with  the  New  Testament  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  as  the 
prescribed  means  whereby  he  may  be  saved,  would  you  regard  him  as 
orthodox  ? 

A.  If  he  lived  out,  or  practiced,  what  he  professed. 

Q.  You  would  regard  him  as  an  orthodox  Christian  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  suppose  I  would. 

Cross- Examination  by  the  Defendant. 

Q.  You  say  that  you  have  read  Jeter's  exposition  of  the  system  of  this 
Christian  or  Campbellite  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  also  that  you  have  read  the  book  I  hold  in  my  hand  entitled, 
"The  Christian  System,"  by  Alexander  Campbell? 

A.  I  have  not  completed  it,  I  have  read  sketches  along  there. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Post,  I  want  to  know  of  you  whether  or  not  you  regard 
church  as  holding  orthodox  Christian  faith  that  teaches  this:  "  I  affirm, 
hen,  that  the  institution,  in  which  we  can  meet  with  God,  is  the  insti- 
ution  for  remission.  And  here  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  tfae  apostles,  in 
ill  their  speeches  and  replies  to  interrogatories,  never  commanded  an  in- 
quirer to  pray,  read,  or  sing,  as  preliminary  to  his  coming ;  but  always  com- 
manded and  proclaimed  immersion  as  the  first  duty,  or  the  first  thing  to  be  done, 
after  belief  of  testimony.  Hence,  neither  praying,  singing,  reading,  repent- 
ing, sorrowing,  resolving,  nor  waiting  to  do  better,  was  the  converting  act. 
Immersion  alone  was  the  act  of  turning  to  God.  Hence,  in  the  commis- 
sion to  convert  the  nations,  the  only  institution  mentioned  after  proclaim- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  6f 

ing  the  gospel,  was  the  immersion  of  the  believers,  as  the  divinely  author- 
ized way  of  carrying  out  and  completing  the  work  "  ?  (Christian  System, 
p.  209.) 

A.  I  would  consider  such  a  denomination  as  unorthodox,  if  this  doc- 
trine was  believed. 

Q.  Well,  without  that — I  have  quoted  from  page  209  of  the  Christian 
System  by  Alexander  Campbell — what  would  you  say?  Would  you  say 
that  a  Christian  church  which  held  this  dogma  of  faith,  or  belief,  is 
orthodox? 

A.  I  would  not. 

Q.  "And  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  the  final  Amen  in  the  Revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ,  no  person  was  said  to  be  converted,  or  turned  to  God, 
until  he  was  buried  in  and  raised  up  out  of  the  water"?  (Christian  System, 

p.  209.) 

A.  I  would  not  consider  that  as  orthodox. 

Q.  And  the  church  that  holds  that  as  one  of  the  essential  doctrines 
of  faith  you  think  is  not  an  orthodox  Christian  church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  is  not. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  to  this  doctrine:  "  If  it  were  not  to  treat 
this  subject  as  one  of  doubtful  disputation,  I  would  say  that,  had  there  not 
been  some  act,  such  as  immersion,  agreed  on  all  hands  to  be  the  medium 
of  remission,  and  the  act  of  conversion  and  regeneration,  the  apostles 
could  not,  with  any  regard  to  truth  and  consistency,  have  addressed  the 
disciples  as  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  reconciled,  adopted  and  saved 
persons"?  (Christian  System,  p.  209.) 

A,  I  would  consider  it  as  unsound  doctrine. 

Q.  And  the  church  that  holds  that  doctrine,  would  you  say  it  is  ortho- 
dox or  heterodox? 

A.  Heterodox. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question.  On  page  216  of  this  book,  I  find 
the  following :  "The  application  of  water,  the  cleansing  element,  to  the 
body,  is  made  the  gracious  institution  to  reach  the  conscience,  as  did  the 
blood  of  sprinkling  under  the  law."  What  do  you  say  to  that  doctrine? 

A.  I  think  it  is  not  scriptural. 

Q,  In  your  judgment,  is  it,  or  is  it  not  orthodox? 

A.  I  think  it  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  belief  which  has 
just  been  stated,  and  with  which  you  are  familiar  by  your  experience  with 
it,  is  the  belief,  or  doctrine,  of  this  Christian  Church.  I  will  ask  you 
whether  or  not  the  doctrines  I  have  just  called  your  attention  to  are  some 
of  the  doctrines  of  this  Church  ? 

A.  They  are,  as  I  understand  them. 


68  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Would  you  hold  that  a  church — a  Christian  church — is  orthodox 
which  believes  the  doctrine  that  a  person  must  necessarily  be  damned,  or 
be  eternally  lost,  if  he  repented  of  his  sins,  and  believed,  and  was  , bap- 
tized by  sprinkling  ?  What  would  you  say  of  one  who  denied  that  there 
is  any  other  method  of  Christian  baptism,  save  by  immersion  or  being 
plunged  into  the  water  ? 

A.  I  would  say  that  it  is  unsound  doctrine — not  scriptural. 

Q.  Would  that  be  orthodox  or  not  ? 

A.  I  should  think  it  would  not  be  orthodox. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  of  a  Christian — a  Christian  denomination — 
which  held  that?  Would  you  say  it  is  orthodox,  or  not,  for  a  Christian 
denomination  to  hold  immersion  as  one  of  its  essential  elements  of  faith, 
and  that  immersion  is  necessary  to  conversion  ? 

A.  I  should  decide  in  my  mind  that  this  is  not  orthodox  doctrine. 

Q.  I  will  read  from  this  book  again:  "Now,  as  soon  as,  and  not  be- 
fore, a  disciple,  who  has  been  begotten  of  God,  is  born  of  water,  he  is  born 
of  God,  or  of  the  Spirit.  Regeneration  is,  therefore,  the  act  of  being  born. 
Hence  its  connection  always  with  water.  Reader,  reflect — what  jargon — 
what  a  confusion,  have  the  mystic  doctors  made  of  this  metaphorical  ex- 
pression, and  of  this  topic  of  regeneration  !  To  call  the  receiving  of  any 
spirit,  or  any  influence,  or  energy,  or  any  operation  upon  the  heart  of  man, 
regeneration,  is  an  abuse  of  all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  from  the 
diction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  calls  nothing  personal  regeneration  except 
the  act  of  immersion."  (Christian  System,  pp.  201-2.)  What  would  you  say 
of  the  orthodoxy  of  that  church  which  holds  as  one  of  its  essentials  of  be- 
lief that  immersion  in  water  is  the  synonym  for  Christian  conversion  ? 

A.  I  should  think  that  it  is  not  orthodox,  so  far  as  it  went. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  of  a  church  which  held  that  being  born 
again,  as  spoken  of  by  James  and  other  apostles,  is  being  immersed  in  the 
water?  Would  you  consider  a  church  which  held  that  as  an  essential  of  its 
belief  as  orthodox  or  not? 

A.  I  would  not  if  it  made  that  an  essential  of  faith. 

Q.  And  again :  "  He  is  born  again  who  is  raised  up  out  of  the  grave  of 
water ;"  do  you  consider  that  as  orthodox  ?  Do  you  consider  the  church 
as  orthodox  which  considers  immersion,  or  being  buried  in  the  water,  anJ 
then  raised  out  of  it — which  considers  that  as  being  born  again  ? 

A.  I  would  not  consider  that  as  orthodoxy. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Post,  whether  or  not  the  following  statement 
which  I  read  from  the  Shorter  Catechism,  or  Confession  of  Faith — you 
may  state  whether  or  not  you  consider  as  orthodox  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine of  baptism:  "Baptism  is  a  sacrament,  wherein  the  washing  with 
water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  69 

doth  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and  partaking  of  the  ben- 
efits of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagement  to  be  the  Lord's." 
(Shorter  Catechism —  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith.,  p.  J$£.) 
A.  I  would  accept  that  as  orthodox. 

Reexamination  by  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  I  will  ask  you  this  question :  The  following  quotation 
was  read  from  this  book:  "Hence,  neither  praying,  singing,  reading,  re- 
penting, sorrowing,  resolving  nor  waiting  to  be  better,  was  the  converting 
act.  Immersion  alone  was  the  act  of  turning  to  God."  Now,  then,  you 
regard  praying  and  reading  and  singing  as  preliminary  to  coming  to 
Christ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  will  you  please  tell  us  of  any  place  where  the  apostles 
ever  demanded  praying,  reading  and  singing  as  preliminary  to  coming  to 
Christ,  and  if  that  is  the  exact  rhetorical  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
apostles  ? 

A.  In  that  quotation  there  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Where  does  an  apostle  express  himself  as  regarding 
praying,  and  reading,  and  singing  as  always  preliminary?  They  demanded 
immersion  as  a  duty  first,  and  these  were  to  be  attended  to  afterward ;  do 
you  say  that  is  not  true  ? 

A.  I  think  that  the  Apostle  Peter  commanded  them  to  repent. 

Q.  Did  he  not  command  them  to  repent,  believe  and  be  baptized,  and 
was  not  that  alone  their  duty,  if  they  believed  in  the  New  Testament? 

A.  Well,  perhaps  it  was. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  is  n't  it  so  declared  by  the  apostles  ?  And  as  the  counsel 
has  asked  whether  or  not  it  is  orthodox,  and  you  have  answered,  I  will  ask 
you  for  a  single  passage  of  the  Bible  wherein  the  statement  from  The  Chris- 
tian System  is  contradicted. 

A.  Perhaps  I  am  at  a  loss  to  recall  any  passage. 

Q.  Now,  then,  with  reference  to  this  praying,  and  reading,  and  sing- 
ing, and  repenting ;  do  you  say  that  these  are  converting  acts — that  pray- 
ing is  a  converting  act,  that  singing  is  a  converting  act,  that  reading  is  a 
converting  act,  that  repenting  is  a  converting  act? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  are  agencies. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  they  are  converting  acts? 

A.  They  are  acts  leading  to  conversion. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  you  do  n't  mean  to  say  that  they  are  converting  acts? 

A.  No,  sir ;  no  one  alone. 

Q.  Well,  would  all  the  acts  be  a  converting  act? 

A.  The  converting  act,  I  suppose,  would  be  through  the  forgiveness 
«f  sin. 


"jo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Was  believing  one  of  the  acts  commanded,  or  not,  and  necessary 
to  conversion  or  forgiveness  of  sin?  If  so,  then  you  agree  with  Mr.  Camp- 
bell in  this  doctrine  ? 

A.  Perhaps  all  of  them  are  requisite. 

Q.  What  is  that  ? 

A.  They  are  requisite. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  praying,  or  singing,  is  requisite  to  conversion  ? 

.•/.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Then  you  think  a  man  can  not  be  converted  withou  he  sings? 

A.  I  suppose  it  has  not  been  commanded. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  say  "  requisite,"  do  you  mean  simply  an  accom- 
paniment? 

A.  Perhaps  it  might  be  so  considered. 

Q.  Now,  then,  the  opinion  which  you  gave  on  the  passage  is  that  im- 
mersion alone  is  not  the  act  of  coming  to  God ;  will  you  now  state  what 
the  feasible  acts  of  conversion  or  turning  to  God  are? 

A.  Well,  asserting  our  belief  in  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

Q.  Is  it  immersion  alone  ? 

A.  It  is  the  influence  of  faith. 

Q.  Now,  is  not  baptism  the  feasible  act  of  turning  to  God  ? 

A.  Perhaps  the  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  would  be  considered  the 
feasible  act. 

Q,  Yes,  sir;  you  say  the  feasible  act  is  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ? 

A.  Rather  the  informal  expression  of  it,  or  confession,  is  the  feasible 
act. 

Q.  I  will  now  ask  you  this  question  :  Is  not  immersion  alone,  as  Mr. 
Campbell  says,  the  feasible  act  of  turning  to  God? 

A.  I  think  not  alone. 

Q.  You  think  not  ?     What  else  is  there  ? 

A.  It  requires  an  effort  by  which  we  bring  ourselves  into  that  frame  of 
mind  in  which  we  receive  the  Spirit. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  in  speaking  of  immersion  you  expressed  your  notions  in 
respect  to  that  institution.  I  now  want  to  know  if  the  apostles  did  not 
always  command  sinners  to  repent  and  turn  from  their  sins  and  be  bap- 
tized ;  and  can  you  find  a  single  instance  of  any  person  known  to  be  con- 
verted until  he  was  buried  in  and  raised  up  out  of  the  water  ?  Is  there  an 
instance  in  which  the  apostles  spoke  of  a  person  being  converted  or  turn- 
ing to  God  until  he  was  baptized,  or  until  he  was  buried  io  and  raised  up 
out  of  the  water — a  burial  by  baptism  ?  Will  you  give  a  single  instance  ? 

A.  Well,  in  the  Acts — Lydia  and  her  household. 

Q.  What  were  they  to  do  ? 

A.  They  were  to  believe. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  ?1 

Q.  What  else? 

A.  They  were  to  be  baptized. 

Q.  To  be  baptized  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  the  command  was  to  be  baptized,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  is  it  not  the  instruction  and  command  in  the  word  of  truth — 
in  the  commission  given  by  the  Lord  to  convert  all  nations — is  not  the 
word  "baptism"  used  in  the  commission,  and  linked  with  the  promise  of 
salvation?  is  it  not  true  that  there  is  no  promise  of  remission  of  sin  unless 
the  men  to  whom  the  command  comes  are  baptized,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says, 
from  the  commission  until  the  final  amen  in  Revelation  ?  Is  there  any 
promise  to  them  until  they  are  buried  in  the  water  and  raised  up  out  of 
the  water,  or  baptized  ?  Is  that  not  a  true  statement  of  a  Biblical  fact  ? 

A.  I  think  there  are  instances,  but  I  can  't  recall  them. 

Q.  Can  you  give  one  ? 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  quote  any  other  ones. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  do  you  attempt  to  say  that  this  is  not  orthodox  doctrine? 
Now,  if  you  call  this  heterodoxy,  where  can  you  point  out  a  single  instance 
in  which  it  is  shown  to  be  untrue? 

A.  I  fail  to  recall  any  at  present. 

Q,  Well,  we  '11  leave  this  here  at  present.  There  is  another  question 
I  desire  to  ask  you  in  reference  to  the  book  before  I  leave  it.  Counsel  has 
read  you  the  following  passage:  "To  call  the  receiving  of  any  spirit,  or 
any  influence,  or  energy,  or  any  operation  upon  the  heart  of  man,  regener- 
ation, is  an  abuse  of  all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  fron  the  diction  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  calls  nothing  personal  regeneration  except  the  act  of  im- 
mersion." (Christian  System,  p.  202.)  Now,  how  did  you  understand  this 
when  you  pronounced  it  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  meant  to  say  that  in  that  expression  I  considered  him  as  saying 
that  immersion  is  the  equivalent  to  conversion. 

Q.  Upon  this  point  I  will  read  you  further  from  the  book:  "But,  be- 
fore we  dismiss  the  sixth  evidence,  which  embraces  so  many  items,  I  beg 
leave  to  make  a  remark  or  two  on  the  propriety  of  considering  the  term 
'immersion'  as  equivalent  to  the  term  'conversion.' 

"Conversion  is,  on  all  sides,  understood  to  be  a  turning  to  God.  Not 
a  thinking  favorably  of  God,  nor  a  repenting  for  former  misdeeds ;  but  an 
actual  turning  to  God,  in  word  and  deed.  It  is  true  that  no  person  can  be 
said  to  turn  to  God  whose  mind  is  not  enlightened,  and  whose  heart  is  not 
well  disposed  towards  God.  All  human  actions,  not  resulting  from  previ- 
ous thought  or  determination,  are  rather  the  actions  of  a  machine  than 
actions  of  a  rational  being.  '  He  that  comes  to  God,'  or  turns  to  him 


J2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

' must  believe  that  God  exists,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  every  one  who 
diligently  seeks  him.'  Then  he  will  seek  and  find  the  Lord.  And  •ex- 
ternal conversion '  is  no  conversion  at  all.  A  turning  to  God  with  the  lips, 
while  the  heart  is  far  from  him,  is  mere  pretense  and  mockery.  But,  though 
I  never  thought  any  thing  else  since  I  thought  upon  religion,  I  understand 
the  '  turning  to  God '  taught  in  the  New  institution  to  be  coming  to  the 
Lord  Jesus,  not  a  thinking  about  doing  it,  nor  a  repenting  that  we  have  not 
done  it ;  but  an  actual  coming  to  him.  The  question  then  is,  Where  shall 
we  find  him?  Where  shall  we  meet  him?  Nowhere  on  earth,  but  in  his 
institutions.  'Where  he  records  his  name,'  there  alone  can  he  be  found; 
for  there  alone  has  he  promised  to  be  found."  (Christian  System,  pp. 
zoS-q.}  What  have  you  to  say  ?  Did  you  understand  the  writer  before  ? 

A.  I  understand  him  now,  I  should  think. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  him  now  as  you  did  before? 

A.  I  do  not  just  now. 

Q.  I  thought  not. 

A.  I  understand  the  writer  to  mean  that  immersion  is  the  institution 
where  the  Lord  has  recorded  his  name,  and  where  the  blessings  of  his 
promises  are  to  be  secured. 

Q.  You  now  see  how  easy  it  is  to  be  mistaken.  You  were  asked  by 
counsel  whether  or  not  a  man  who  is  a  believer  in  the  following  doctrine  is 
orthodox:  "The  application  of  water,  the  cleansing  element,  to  the  body, 
is  made  the  gracious  institution  to  reach  the  conscience,  as  did  the  blood  of 
sprinkling  under  the  law."  (Christian  System,  p.  216.}  Do  you  now  say 
that  this  is  not  Biblical  doctrine? 

A.  I  would  not  attempt  to  say. 

Q.  You  would  n't  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  not  ? 

A.  Because  I  consider  the  application  of  the  Spirit  as  the  cleansing 
power  of  the  soul.  I  do  not  think  water  is  the  cleansing  agency  in  this 
case. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  you  say  the  Spirit  is  the  cleansing  power?  Isn't  the 
blood  of  the  Saviour  the  cleansing  power  ? 

A.  Applied. 

Q.  What  is  it? 

A.  Applied. 

Q.  And  with  the  application  by  the  Spirit  the  water  cleanses  and  puri- 
fies as  did  the  blood  of  sprinkling  in  the  law;  so  the  blood  of  sprinkling 
in  the  law  was  an  institution  to  reach  the  conscience  ? 

A.  It  had  a  similar  purpose. 

Q.  It  had  a  similar  purpose?     Now,  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  ask  you  if 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  fj 

you  believe  that  baptism  is  the  ordinance  wherewith  sins  are  washed  away, 
and  also  that  it  is  a  sign  of  regeneration  and  a  new  birth — do  you  believe 
that? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  in  the  main. 

Q.  What  is  it  you  say  ? — that  you  believe  that  ?  Is  that  not  the  doc- 
trine of  your  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  is  substantially. 

Q.  How  is  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  "Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament,  wherein  Christ 
hath  ordained  the  washing  of  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be  a  sign  and  seal  of  ingrafting  into  himself, 
of  remission  of  sins  by  his  blood,  and  regeneration  by  his  Spirit."  Do  you 
believe  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  believe  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Baker  has  examined  you  in  regard  to  the  question 
of  baptism.  I  desire  to  ask  you  still  further  concerning  it.  I  read  the 
following:  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  no  party,  no  one  party  on  earth.  It 
is  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  is  in  the  hearts  of  men :  consisting  not  in 
meats,  drinks,  creeds  and  covenants,  '  but  in  righteousness,  peace  and  joy 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Into  this  no  one  can  enter  without  faith,  and  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Baptism  into  Christ,  the  effect  of  faith,  is  a  sensible  intro- 
duction into  this  spiritual  state,  and  outwardly  unites  us  with  the  public 
profession ;  but  when  properly  understood,  spiritually,  sometimes  called 
mystically,  or  under  the  symbol,  inducts  into  an  intimate,  near  and  holy 
union  with  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  by  his  Spirit.  This  outward  act,  then, 
is  but  the  symbol  of  the  transaction,  inward  and  spiritual,  by  which  our 
souls  are  bathed  in  that  ocean  of  love,  which  purifies  our  persons,  and 
makes  them  one  with  the  Lord.  Without  this,  being  born  of  the  water,  or  being 
connected  with  a  church,  is  nothing — worse  than  nothing.  Hence,  without  previ- 
ous knowledge,  faith  and  repentance,  immersion,  into  the  name,  etc.,  is  a  mere 
outward  and  unprofitable  ceremony."  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  493.}  What  do 
you  say  of  a  man  who  believes  that,  especially  as  he  has  elsewhere  said 
that  a  man  may  be  immersed  in  the  river  Jordan  seven  times  without 
a  previous  change  of  heart  and  receive  no  benefit  from  the  immersion ;  is 
that  good  orthodox  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  would  accept  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  is  that  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  is,  in  full. 

Q.  You  don't  think  it  is?     Why  don't  you  think  so? 

7 


74  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A,  Well,  from  what  I  have — well,  not  from  my  information  of  it? 

Q.  Do  n't  you  know  that  Mr.  Campbell  declared  and  believed  that 
doctrine  ? 

A.  I  suppose  he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  pretend  to  say  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  ? 

A.  It  is,  if  I  am  able  to  understand  Mr.  Campbell ;  it  depends  a 
great — 

Q.  It  depends  for  its  orthodoxy  on  whether  you  understand  the  read- 
ing or  not  ? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  about  that. 

Q.  What  is  it  ? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  pretend  to  say,  sir,  that  the  Christian  Churdi  makes  bap- 
tism a  saving  ordinance  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  the  CHRISTIAN  Church  does. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  by  the  Christian  Church,  the  Disciples'  Church,  if 
you  like. 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Where  do  you  find  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  find  it  in  the  usages  of  the  different  churches. 

Q.  In  the  usages? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  your  explanation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  explain  the  usages  by  which  you  say  that  baptism  is  set 
forth  as  a  saving  ordinance  ? 

A.  It  seems  to  be  accepted — at  least  it  is  quite  generally  consented  to. 
The  Campbellite  element,  or  church,  manifestly  insists  upon  baptism  more 
than  any  other  Christian  society. 

Q.   More  than  any  other  Christian  society  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  then,  you  say  that  it  is  accepted,  or  it  is  the  general  senti. 
ment? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  know  about  it? 

A.  I  think  I  have  reason  to  believe  so  from  experience  in  different 
localities,  and  from  talks  with  different  individuals. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Post,  did  I  understand  you  to  say,  in  answering  Mr. 
Baker's  question,  that  a  denomination  which  regards  immersion  as  the  only 
proper  mode  of  baptism  is  not  orthodox  ? 

.-/.  I  think  I  said  that  I  would  not  consider  it  orthodox,  so  far  as  it 
went. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  75 

Q.  Well,  what  did  you  mean  by  that  ? 

A.  I  meant,  sir,  that  I  do  not  think  that  immersion  constitutes  a  qual- 
ification of  orthodoxy. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  is  there  any  denomination,  or  church,  within  your 
knowledge  which  does  not  acknowledge  immersion  to  be  the  proper  mode 
of  baptism? 

A.  There  are  in  fact  no  churches. 

Q.  Mr.  Post,  I  will  ask  you  this  question  again :  Is  there  any  denomi- 
nation, or  church,  which  you  call  orthodox,  that  does  not  recognize  im- 
mersion as  the  proper  mode  of  baptism  ? 

A.  Well,  perhaps  there  is  none,  in  the  full  acceptation  of  the  term ; 
there  are  churches  which  do  not  practice  immersion,  however. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  what  you  call  in  common  parlance  immersion  is  baptism, 
and  what  you  call  baptism  is  immersion,  is  it  not? 

A.  As  I  understand  it. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  you  say  these  are  orthodox  churches? 

A.  I  would  not  make  immersion  the  test  of  orthodoxy. 

Q.  Some  of  the  churches  believe  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper 
method  of  baptism,  do  they  not? 

A.  I  think  they  do. 

Q.  Now,  then,  you  say  that  you  would  not  make  immersion,  or  belief 
in  immersion,  the  test  of  orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy  ? 

A.  Not  in  the  main. 

Q.  And  if  a  person  believes  in  immersion  as  the  proper,  and  the  only 
proper  method  of  baptism,  but  still  further  believes  that  immersion  ought 
to  be  followed  by  a  desire  to  lead  a  new  and  holy  life,  do  you  say  that  the 
person  or  church  that  holds  to  that  is  heterodox  ? 

A.  I  would  not  think  it  is  heterodox. 

Q.  Well,  do  faith  and  repentance,  or  belief  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
tonstitute  the  test  of  orthodoxy? 

A.  So  far  as  that  would  go  I  would  consent  to  it  as  orthodox  doctrine. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  desire  in  the  reexamination  to  qualify  the  first  state- 
ment you  made,  that  to  be  orthodox  you  require  first  a  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  personality,  and  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  or  personality 
of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  a  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  and  also  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Saviour — do 
you  want  to  modify  that  statement  of  orthodoxy? 

A.  I  wish  to  modify  it  in  that  I  would  qualify  the  statement  by  saying 
the  Divine  Person. 

Q.  What  is  it  ? 

A.  I  would  say  the  Divine  Person  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  the  Son. 

Q.  And  a  person  who  believes  that  baptism  by  immersion  is  the  only 
proper  method  of  baptism,  you  would  still  say  he  is  orthodox,  would  you  ? 


7<5  Our  Orthodoxy  in  t/te  Ctvil  Courts. 

A.  So  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I  would  regard  him  as  orthodox ;  I 
would  not  make  that  the  only  test. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  the  following  to  be  orthodox  doctrine?  "God,  by 
an  eternal  and  immutable  decree,  out  of  his  mere  love,  for  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace,  to  be  manifested  in  due  time,  hath  elected  some  angels  to 
glory;  and,  in  Christ  hath  chosen  some  men  to  eternal  life,  and  the  means 
thereof  and  also,  according  to  his  sovereign  power  and  the  unsearchable 
counsel  of  his  own  will  (whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  favor  as  he 
pleaseth)  hath  passed  by,  arid  foreordained  the  rest  to  dishonor  and  to 
wrath,  to  be  for  their  sin  inflicted  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  justice." 
( Westminster  Confession  of  FaitA,  pp.  179-80.) 

(The  defendant  objected  to  this  question,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  that  doctrine? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  church  that  believes  that  doctrine? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Is  not  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

A.  It  has  been. 

Q.  Is  not  that  an  article  of  Calvinism  or  Presbyterianism  ? 

A.  I  do  not  believe  they  accept  it  now. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  Presbyterian  who  does  not  indorse  that 
doctrine? 

A.  Well,  I  think  I  do. 

Q.  What  is  his  name  ? 

A.  The  pastor  of  a  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  place. 

Q.  Mr.  Barr? 

(The  question  was  not  answered.) 

Q.  That  is  all. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

SECTION  III. 

TESTIMONY   OF   W.  D.  OWEN. 

Mr.  Owen,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn, 
testified  as  follows: 

Direct  Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  You  may  state  your  name  to  the  court  and  jury. 

A.  W.  D.  Owen. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  I  reside  in  Logansport,  Indiana. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  you  are  a  member  of  any  church ; 
and  if  so,  what  one. 

A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church? 

A.  Some  thirteen  or  fourteen  years. 

Q.  What  relation  do  you  sustain  to  the  Church  ? 

A.  I  was  at  one  time  a  pastor  in  the  Church. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  act  as  a  pastor  in  the  Church? 

A.  About  nine  years.     I  continue  to  preach. 

Q.  You  may  state,  Mr.  Owen,  whether  or  not  you  are  acquainted  with 
the  teachings  of  the  Christian  Church. 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  you  recognize  it  as  being  orthodox 
in  its  teachings. 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  jury  the  points  which  constitute  orthodoxy. 

A.  The  points  of  a  true  orthodoxy,  as  recognized  by  the  Protestant 
churches,  are :  An  acceptance  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  all  they  teach ; 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men ;  repentance ;  confes- 
sion unto  salvation ;  baptism ;  and  those  things  which  constitute  a  holy  and 
pious  life. 

Q.  You  may  state  the  teachings  of  the  Disciples'  Church  on  these  va- 
rious points  which  you  say  constitute  the  doctrine  of  orthodoxy  among  the 
Protestant  churches. 

77 


78  Our  Orthodoxy  in  t/ie  Civil  Courts. 

A.  The  Church  teaches  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures;  that  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  each  divine  and  form  a  Trinity  in  Unity; 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ;  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  active  agent  of  God,  through  the  gospel,  in  the  salvation 
of  the  sinner ;  that  a  man  must  have  faith  in  Christ,  repent  of  his  sins, 
confess  the  Saviour,  and  be  baptized ;  and  following  this  there  must  be  a 
Christ-like  life. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  various  churches  in  their  teach- 
ings, or  their  written  creeds,  vary,  or  differ  somewhat,  from  each  other  in 
their  statement  of  their  doctrines  and  teachings. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  they  differ. 

Q.  Why  are  not  the  articles  of  faith  in  any  one  of  the  churches  the 
standard  of  orthodoxy  among  all  the  Protestant  churches? 

A.  For  the  reason  that  each  of  the  "Articles  of  Faith  "  contains  more 
than  the  standard  of  orthodoxy.  I  will  illustrate  that. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  asserts  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion and  foreordination ;  that  a  certain  number  of  men  and  angels  are  from 
all  eternity  elected  to  salvation,  and  a  certain  number  of  them  condemned 
to  everlasting  damnation.  But  the  Methodist  discipline  does  not  teach  that 
a  definite  number  of  men  are  thus  elected  to  eternal  life,  and  a  certain 
number  are  elected  to  everlasting  damnation;  it  teaches  that  man  is  a 
free  moral  agent,  and,  without  being  antedated  by  a  divine  edict,  he  be- 
lieves to  salvation,  or  rejects  to  condemnation.  Here  is  a  difference  of 
opinion  between  these  two  churches.  The  statement  of  either  one  of  them 
upon  free  grace  can  not  be  accepted  as  correct  by  the  other — they  do  not 
make  the  belief  upon  this  point  the  test  of  orthodoxy. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  orthodoxy  at  the  present  time  is 
what  it  has  been  in  the  past,  or  whether  it  has  changed. 

A.  Orthodoxy,  so-called,  has  changed ;  that  is,  it  is  not  to-day  what  it 
was,  say  one  hundred  years  ago. 

Q.  Wherein  has  it  changed  ? 

A.  Less  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  to  be  orthodox,  one  had  to  believe 
in  endless  punishment  by  literal  fire  and  brimstone,  in  miraculous  conver- 
sions, and  that  the  concerns  of  life  were  largely  controlled  by  special  prov- 
idences. Orthodoxy  does  not  now  require  such  ultra  views  of  God's  deal- 
ings with  humanity. 

Q.  There  has  been  something  said,  Mr.  Owen,  in  the  examination 
here,  about  another  Christian  Church.  Do  you  known  of  any  other  Chris- 
tian Church  than  the  denomination  known  as  the  Christian  or  Disciples' 
Church? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  there  is  such  a  body.     Their  reformation  was  under  the 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  /p 

leadership  of  Barton  W.  Stone,  and  it  was  started  near  the  time  that  the 
Campbells  began  their  work. 

Q.  About  when  was  that  time? 

A.  In  the  early  part  of  this  century. 

Q.  Proceed  now  with  your  statement. 

A.  Do  you  want  me  to  refer  to  the  history  of  the  Church  ? 

Q.  I  mean  by  that  whether  or  not  the  other  one  of  the  Christian 
churches  you  speak  of  is  a  part  of  the  Disciples'  Church,  or  is  it  inde- 
pendent? 

A.  Neither  one  was  an  off-shoot  from  the  other. 

Q.  What  is  that? 

A.  Neither  one  was  an  off-shoot  from  the  other.  Barton  W.  Stone 
was  independent  and  original  in  his  movement.  He  accepted  the  Bible 
alone  as  his  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  Mr.  Campbell  discovered  they 
were  acting  upon  the  same  principle,  but  were  interpreting  the  Bible  dif- 
ferently in  some  essential  particulars,  and  were  going  to  distract  the  world 
with  two  more  churches,  propelled  by  a  like  plea,  yet  warring  with  each 
other.  The  two  great  reformers  finally  had  a  protracted  interview,  dis- 
cussing the  gospel  plan  of  salvation,  which  resulted  in  a  union  of  their 
movements,  Stone  accepting  the  correctness  of  Campbell  in  the  prominent 
points  wherein  they  had  differed.  The  larger  part  of  the  Stone  congrega- 
tions came  with  him  into  the  current  reformation.  Many,  however,  did 
not  do  so. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  Christian 
Church  is. 

A.  It  is  the  Bible  alone. 

Q.  Has  there  ever  been  any  written  or  formulated  creed  put  forth  by 
that  Church? 

A.  Never,  at  any  time. 

Q.  Has  there  ever  been,  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  any  doctrine 
or  any  writings  of  its  leaders  formulated,  as  teaching  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  ? 

A.  There  never  has  been  by  the  authority  of  the  Church. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  in 
this:  "I  believe  in  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  Heaven  and 
earth." 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  this 
doctrine:  "I  believe  He  created  me,  that  He  gave  and  still  preserves 
the  faculties  I  possess,  and  that  He  requires  me  to  serve,  obey  and  believe 
Him." 

A.  I  believe  it,  and  so  does  every  member  of  the  Church. 


So  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  State  whether  the  following  is  believed  by  the  members  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  taught  by  it:  "I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only 
Son,  our  Lord ;  who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary;  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried;  he 
descended  into  hell ;  the  third  day  he  arose  from  the  dead ;  he  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  the  Father  Almighty ; 
from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead." 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  your  Church  believes  and  teaches 
the  following  doctrine :  "  I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  sufferings  and 
death,  and  that  he  lives  and  reigns  throughout  all  eternity." 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  and 
practices  this  doctrine:  "  I  believe  that  He  (God)  gave  me  my  form  and  my 
reason,  and  that  through  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  He  will  give  me  everlasting 
life." 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  we  preach  and  believe  it. 

Cross- Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant. 

Q.  Mr.  Owen,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  your  Church  has  no  writ- 
ten creed ;  is  that  correct  ? 

A.  That  is  correct. 

Q.  No  creed  ? 

A.  No  creed,  separate  and  apart  from  the  Word  of  God. 

Q.  No  summary  of  belief  at  all,  separate  and  apart  from  the  Holy 
Sciiptures? 

A.  None  whatever. 

Q.  No  creed  or  discipline  in  name  stating  the  doctrine,  distinct  and 
apart  from  the  Bible  ? 

A.  None  in  name,  distinct  and  apart  from  the  Bible. 

Q.  Suppose  a  member  of  your  Church  and  yourself  were  to  read  the 
Bible  and  believe  differently.  Now,  as  you  get  your  different  beliefs  from 
the  same  Bible,  would  he  be  entitled  to  his  belief  as  much  as  you  would  be 
to  yours — would  your  Church  allow  such  a  state  of  things  as  this? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  the  latitude  you  mean  to  imply. 

Q.  Would  he  be  allowed,  according  to  the  belief  and  practice  of  your 
Church,  to  put  such  a  construction  upon  the  Bible  as  he  pleased  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  such  a  construction  as  he  pleased. 

Q.  What  would  interfere  ? 

A.  The  Bible. 

Q.  Then  the  declaration  of  the  Bible  would  be  just  the  same  as  that 
of  the  creed? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  81 

A.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Q.  Suppose  that  you  and  I  both  read  the  Bible  and  differ  radically  in 
our  beliefs,  could  we  not  both  belong  to  your  Church? 

A.  Am  I  to  suppose  the  doctrine — 

(Objection  was  made  to  this  question,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  If  you  and  I  were  both  to  read  the  Bible  and  get  our  faith  or  be- 
lief from  it,  but  by  putting  radically  different  constructions  upon  the  state- 
ments of  the  Bible  these  beliefs  were  to  be  radically  different,  could  we 
both  belong  to  your  Church  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  every  case  of  radically  different  construction  and 
belief. 

Q.  What  would  there  be  to  prevent  it  ? 

A.  Perhaps  I  can  answer  that  by  giving  an  illustration. 

Q.  Well,  give  it. 

A.  Suppose  that  two  persons  take  the  Bible  to  study  it.  They  may 
both  read  it;  and  one  of  them  may  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  other  that  he  is  not  divine.  Now,  the  one 
who  would  refuse  to  accept  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  divine  could 
not  become  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Witness,  what  creed  or  what  doctrine  is  there  to  settle 
the  practice  ?  what  is  there  to  decide  the  matter  ?  and  I  want  to  ask  you 
further,  what  is  there  to  decide  any  question  ? 

A.  The  Testament  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  epistles  written 
by  His  apostles.  These  decide  the  matters  for  the  Christian  Church  pre- 
cisely as  the  statements  of  creeds  decide  matters  for  other  churches.  The 
Bible  is  our  creed. 

42.  Is  a  member  of  your  Church  allowed  to  put  any  construction  upon 
any  passage  of  Scripture  which  he  may  choose,  without  the  interference  of 
the  Church? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  doctrine,  or  belief,  of  your  Church? 

A.  The  Church  accepts  the  Bible  as  its  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
It  speaks  where  the  Bible  speaks,  and  is  silent  where  it  is  silent.  It  takes 
the  Scriptures  without  comment  or  interpretation  of  men,  and  accepts  the 
Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible. 

Q.  Who  compose  your  Church? 

A.  Obedient  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  definition  you  give  as  defining  your  Church? 

A.  As  a  definition,  I  might  enlarge  upon  it. 

Q.  How  do  you  determine  the  construction  a  believer  is  to  put  upon 
the  Bible,  or  any  part  of  it? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  grasp  your  question. 


82  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  How  do  you  determine  the  construction,  or  meaning,  which  you 
understand  your  Church  to  get  from  the  Bible  concerning  any  doctrine? 

A.  The  scholastic  jargon  of  sectarianism  causes  the  public  mind  to 
rest  in  a  strange  misapprehension  of  the  Bible  doctrine.  That  part  of  the 
Bible  which  treats  on  the  things  necessary  to  salvation  does  not  require  a 
"construction."  All  the  statements  concerning  the  necessary  matters  in 
salvation  are  plain  commandments  of  things  to  be  done  by  the  sinner. 
Personally,  I  feel  that  God  would  not  be  good  in  placing  the  words  of 
eternal  life  in  such  a  darkened  way  that  an  interpretation  of  them  would 
be  necessary.  If  such  be  the  fact,  the  apostle  made  a  mistake  when  he 
spoke  of  the  gospel  as  being  God's  revealed  plan  of  salvation.  Neither  do 
I  feel  that  he  is  all-wise,  if  a  "construction"  be  required  upon  these  essen- 
tials of  salvation;  because  experience  has  shown  that  finite  men  have  dif- 
fered in  the  construction  to  be  placed  upon  these  things,  and  by  the  con- 
flicts growing  out  of  these  different  constructions  the  church  has  been 
desolated  for  fifteen  centuries.  On  the  matter  of  human  depravity,  the 
direct  operation  of  the  Spirit,  the  eternal  decrees,  the  freedom  of  the  will, 
and  the  whole  array  of  intricate  and  profound  theological  problems,  known 
as  scholastic  divinity,  the  Bible  has  not  given  a  formulated  statement,  nor 
required  a  specific  faith.  The  members  of  the  primitive  Church,  doubtless, 
differed  upon  these  great  questions.  As  they  have  no  necessary  connection 
with  salvation,  God  has  left  us  free  to  whatever  opinion  we  may  prefer. 
And  all  the  statements  concerning  the  necessary  matters  in  salvation  are 
plain  commandments  of  things  to  be  done  by  the  sinner.  So,  I  answer,  as 
a  church,  we  do  not  have  any  "  constructions  to  determine." 

Q.  Is  there  any  body,  or  stated  person  under  authority,  to  whom  you 
can  refer  to  determine  any  disputed  point  ? 

A.  There  is  no  dispute  on  those  points  which  go  to  make  up  real  or- 
thodoxy ;  and  this  fact  emphasizes  the  divine  correctness  of  our  position. 
All  questions  on  other  points  are  left  in  that  same  liberty  which  the  Script- 
ures so  plainly  indicate. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  accept  the  form  of  orthodoxy  which  the 
Baptist  Church  maintains  ? 

A.  That  depends. 

Q.  In  the  main,  you  refer  questions  in  the  Christian  Church  to  what 
authority?  . 

A.  To  the  Word  of  God. 

Q.   Is  your  creed  written  or  printed  ? 

A.  Neither,  only  as  it  is  found  in  the  Bible  ;  there  is  no  necessity  for 
another  creed  in  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  By  what  authority  do  you  determine  the  correctness  of  any  con- 
struction of  the  Bible  tor  the  admission  of  a  person  into  your  Church  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  83 

A.  No  construction  is  needed.  The  apostles  have  stated  the  things  to 
be  done.  Our  requirements  are  those  recorded  in  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
where  they  preached  the  gospel  and  admitted  persons  into  the  Church. 

Q.  O  Mr.  Witness,  you  are  too  vague. 

A.  Then  inspiration  is  too  vague,  and  the  apostles  were  unable  to 
record  the  movements  of  the  sinner  coming  into  Christ,  so  that  others  com- 
ing afterward  should  be  able  to  follow  in  his  footsteps. 

Q.  How  are  you  to  determine  whether  or  not  you  are  orthodox  ? 

A.   By  comparing  our  practice  and  teaching  with  the  divine  standard. 

Q.  Who  is  to  determine  what  is  accepted  by  the  orthodox  Baptists? 

A.  I  presume  it  is  whoever  determines  what  has  been  accepted. 

Q.   How  is  that  ?     I  do  not  hear. 

A.  I  presume  it  would  be  determined  by  this. 

Q.  How  do  you  mean  by  this  ? 

A.  That  orthodox  body. 

Q.  Would  that  answer  the  question  of  how  they  are  to  determine  who 
is  to  be  admitted  ? 

A.  You  misunderstand  me.  We  would,  if  called  upon,  determine 
that  by  the  authority  of  the  original  Church — the  divine  standard,  which 
is  the  Bible. 

Q.  The  original  Church,  you  say  ?  By  what  authority  do  you  deter- 
mine the  correctness  of  any  construction  of  the  Bible  for  the  admission  of 
a  person  into  your  Church  ? 

A.  I  restate  the  fact  which  I  stated  in  answer  to  a  previous  question, 
that  as  a  Church — that  is,  by  Church  authority — we  do  not  determine  con- 
structions of  Bible  statements.  Permit  me  to  give  a  demonstration  of  how 
we  determine  questions  that  pertain  to  the  admission  of  any  one  into  the 
Church :  In  the  second  chapter  of  Acts  it  is  related  that,  when  Peter  had 
preached  the  first  gospel  sermon  and  the  people  believed  it  and  inquired 
what  they  must  do,  Peter  told  them  to  repent  and  be  baptized  into  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  their  sins.  We  then  read  that  as 
many  as  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  that  the  same  day 
there  were  added  to  the  number  of  the  disciples  about  three  thousand 
souls.  We  find  that  in  the  cases  of  the  jailer,  Philip,  Lydia,  Paul,  and 
indeed  in  all  the  recorded  cases  of  pardon,  there  was  an  exact  agreement 
with  the  steps  taken  in  the  Pentecost  conversions.  The  Pentecostans  heard 
and  obeyed  three  distinct  commandments:  I.  They  pronounced  their  faith 
in  the  Saviour.  2.  They  repented  of  their  sins.  3.  They  were  baptized. 
Now,  when  these  commandments  came — to  have  faith  in  Jesus,  to  repent, 
to  be  baptized — each  of  them  required  an  act  to  obey  it.  No  construction 
was  to  be  placed  upon  them.  The  Almighty  had  given  them  their  con- 
struction, it  was  a  designated  act  of  obedience.  There  was  nothing  for  the 


8 j.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

willing  heart  to  do  but  to  obey.  This  is  what  was  done  from  Pentecost  for- 
ward, in  every  recited  case  in  the  Acts.  All  these  are  spoken  of  as  being 
in  the  Church — as  having  been  translated  from  the  world  into  Christ. 
Hence,  the  steps  of  admission  into  the  Church  of  Christ  are  construc- 
tionless.  An  Infinite  Wisdom  has  so  decreed  it.  He  has  commanded 
that  men  pass  through  certain  steps,  and  they  pass  into  the  Church.  The 
Christian  Church  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  here  commanded.  It  has 
"determined"  when  it  follows  the  examples  given  by  divine  authority.  It 
requires  the  willing  sinner  to  obey  these  commandments,  and  he  is  thus  ad- 
mitted into  the  Church. 

Q.  Is  it  correct  when  you  say  that  there  are  many  things,  or  doctrines, 
in  the  so-called  orthodox  churches  which  you  would  accept  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  those  points,  or  doctrines,  of  the  orthodox  creeds  are  ac- 
cepted by  the  Christian  Church  which  are  according  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures. 

Q.  Who  is  to  judge,  or  determine,  what  churches  are  orthodox  con- 
cerning these  announced  doctrines? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 
A.  No  one,  except  the  Church  itself. 

Q.  Suppose,  Mr.  Witness,  a  man  professes  unbounded  belief  in  the 
Bible,  and  is  a  member  of  your  Church,  but  is  manifestly  an  atheist.  Now, 
how  are  you  to  determine  whether  he  is  to  be  allowed  to  remain  in  the 
Church,  or  whether  he  is  to  be  excluded  ? 

A.  The  Bible  informs  us  on  that  point  that  he  is  a  heretic ;  and  being 
a  heretic,  he  is  not  to  be  admitted;  and  if  admitted,  he  is  to  be  excluded. 
Q.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  true,  but  he  claims  to  recognize  the  Bible  as  true, 
yet  he  professes  atheism. 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.   But  an  atheist  does  not  recognize  the  Bible  as  true,  for  he  rejects 

the  gospel  of  Christ.     He  is   without  faith,  and  whatever  is  without  faith 

is  sin.     Manifestly  professing  atheism,  he  could  not  be  in  Christ's  Church. 

Q.  That  is  your  answer.     Well,  now,  to  the  question  involved  in  the 

doctrine  of  immersion,  as  to  whether  it  is  orthodox  or  not.    Suppose  I  was 

a  member  of  your  Church,  and  I  should  reject  the  doctrine  of  immersion, 

claiming  that  the  Bible  did  not  taach  it  at  all,  and  I  would  obtain  baptism 

by  sprinkling;  I  want  to  know  whether  I  would  be  right  or  wrong,  and  if 

wrong,  why? 

A.  You  would  be  wrong.  There  has  never  been  any  difference  among 
scholars  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  anglicized  word  "  baptize."  They  are  in 
an  unbroken  harmony  on  immersion  as  the  primary  meaning.  Liddell  and 
Scott,  in  the  first  edition  of  their  Greek  lexicon,  placed  sprinkling  as  its 
meaning,  trusting  to  a  popular  religious  practice  to  sustain  them.  But 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  85 

scholarship  means  integrity,  and  scholarship  frowned  sprinkling  out  of  the 
second  and  succeeding  editions.  There  is  no  scholar,  with  a  reputation  as 
broad  as  his  continent,  there  is  no  Greek  lexicon  or  dictionary,  but  what 
asserts  immersion  to  be  the  meaning  of  baptize ;  and  in  no  instance  do 
they,  primarily,  admit  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  original  word  which 
our  Saviour  and  the  apostles  used  meant,  as  applied  to  this  command,  to  be 
enveloped  in  water,  just  as  our  word  immerse  means  it.  In  fact,  they  used 
a  word  that  did  not  require  a  "construction" — the  word  signified  an  act, 
as  immersion  does  now.  Again  :  our  Saviour  calls  baptism  a  birth.  Noth- 
ing can  represent  a  birth  except  it  come  forth  from  a  complete  envelop- 
ment. The  apostle  calls  baptism  a  burial — "buried  with  him  in  baptism." 
A  thing  can  not  be  said  to  be  buried  except  it  be  entirely  "covered  up." 
So  the  Scriptures  take  the  two  solemn  acts  of  life,  the  one  at  the  opening, 
the  other  at  its  close,  the  surroundings  of  which  are  known  to  all  human- 
ity, and  make  them  the  type  of  baptism.  Baptism  is  a  birth,  a  burial — a 
complete  envelopment.  If  you  were  to  reject  this  you  would  be  wrong. 
One  reason  for  this  is  that  you  have  not  been  buried  with  your  Saviour  by 
baptism. 

Q.  Who  determines  that  that  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism  practiced 
by  the  apostles? 

A.  A  united  learning.     The  Bible  does  not  record  any  other. 

Q.  What  body  of  the  Church  does  ?  Take  them  all  together,  is  that 
the  announced  doctrine  of  the  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   the  universal  Church. 

Q.  Where  was  it,  and  by  what  authority  was  it  accepted  ? 

A.   By  the  universal  practice  of  the  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  gradually,  little  by  little ;  or  is  immersion  the  ac- 
cepted doctrine? 

A.  It  is  accepted  by  the  universal  Church;  it  has  been  so  from  its 
beginning. 

Q.  When  was  it  begun  by  the  Christian  Church? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  the  year  1823,  when  the  first  churches  were 
being  established. 

Q.  Does  the  Church  accept  it  as  a  body  ? 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  Has  the  belief  remained  unchanged  down  to  the  present  time? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  has  remained  unchanged,  but  there  seems  to  be  a 
change  in  all  the  religious  bodies  orthodoxly. 

Q.  1820,  did  you  say? 

A.  1823. 

Q.  1823.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  your 
Church  belongs  to  the  Alexander  Campbell  branch  ? 


86  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tfie  Civil  Courts. 

A.  It  belongs  to  Christ's  branch. 

Q.  Now,  does  it  not  belong  to  the  Campbell  branch  ?  ~Did  not  the 
witness  assert  that  yesterday?  Will  you  state  what  is  proper? 

A.  I  would  state  that  the  Church  has  rejected  "  Campbellite"  as  its 
name,  and  from  the  beginning  requested  to  be  called  the  Christian  Church, 
or  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Witness,  what  is  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  in 
regard  to  baptism  ?  Does  it,  in  fact,  teach  that  if  is  the  result  of  belief? 

A.  It  teaches  that  it  is  faith  that  brings  a  man  to  obedience,  and  that 
through  obedience  he  is  brought  into  the  body  of  Christ. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  faith  alone? 

A.  Oh!  no,  sir. 

Q.  Very  well.     Explain  the  word  faith.     Give  the  meaning  of  it. 

A.  Faith  means  a  trust  in  Christ,  which  manifests  itself  by  obedience 
to  His  gospel. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.     Now,  in  what  respect  has  that  doctrine  changed? 

A.  The  doctrine  has  not  changed.  Originally  it  had  the  same  mean- 
ing in  the  Church. 

Q.  Practically  speaking,  Mr.  Witness,  there  has  been  no  change  in  the 
doctrines  of  your  Church  ? 

A.  There  has  been  none. 

Q.  What  has  been  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  is  the  doctrine  to-day? 

A.  I  will  add  to  that,  before  I  pass,  my  statement  that  the  essentials 
are  substantially  the  same.  The  essential  principles  remain  unchanged. 

Q.  Then,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  they  are  the  same? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  were  not  the  true  doctrines  of  your  Church  originally  an- 
nounced by  Alexander  Campbell  himself,  and  Thomas  Campbell? 

A.   Were  they  announced  ? 

Q.  Are  the  doctrines  which  are  accepted  now  the  doctrines  which 
were  originally  announced  by  the  Campbells? 

A.  In  the  main  they  are. 

Q.  Now,  then,  what  was  the  teaching  of  your  Church  in  1823  on  the 
subject  of  regeneration? 

A.  That  it  is  being  born  again. 

Q.  I  ask  you  to  state  to  the  jury  what  your  Church  accepted,  or 
taught,  originally  on  the  subject  of  regeneration. 

A.  It  has  taught  that  regeneration  embraces  in  it  a  leaving  of  the 
world  and  a  coming  into  the  body  of  Christ,  or  becoming  a  Christian 
person. 

Q.  Pertaining  to  the  original  definition,  I  ask  you  to  tell  the  jury  what 
your  Church  originally  accepted  as  the  doctrine  of  regeneration. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  8f 

A.  That  entire  reformation  which  takes  place  in  a  man  on  coming  into 
Christ. 

Q.  Is  that  the  definition  you  have  given  according  to  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  definition  we  have  given  according  to  the 
Scriptures. 

Q.  What  relation  does  baptism  bear  to  regeneration? 

A.  It  is  the  overt  action  of  Christian  birth. 

Q.  Did  not  your  Church  consider  baptism  and  regeneration  one  and 
the  same  thing,  synonymous,  as  late  as  1839? 

A.  No,  sir,  it  did  not,  in  the  light  of  your  statement  of  the  case. 

Q.  What  about  the  teaching  of  the  Disciples  as  to  regeneration  and 
baptism — what  relation  do  they  bear  to  one  another  ? 

A.  We  teach  that  baptism  is  the  consummating  act  in  coming  to  God. 
The  Saviour  had  a  conversation  with  Nicodemus  wherein  He  tells  him  that 
a  man  must  be  born  again  of  the  water  and  the  Spirit  before  he  can  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  the  water  does  not  purify  the  heart — 
faith  does  that.  The  baptism  is  what  a  lawyer  would  call  the  legal  act  on 
entering  Christ. 

Q.  Will  you  repeat  that,  Mr.  Witness  ?  Did  not  Alexander  Campbell 
always  teach  that  ? 

( Objection  was  made  to  this  question,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  I  repeat,  did  not  your  Church — did  not  Alexander 
Campbell,  or  the  Campbells,  teach,  as  a  doctrine  of  your  Church  originally, 
that  baptism  and  regeneration  are  synonymous? 

A.  Never,  as  you  interpret  it;  nor  has  it  been  so  accepted  by  the 
Church. 

Q,  Mr.  Witness,  is  the  following  the  enunciation  of  orthodox  doc- 
trine: "As  regeneration  is  being  born  again,  we  wish  to  examine  faith 
ami  immersion  as  given  in  the  commission.  Regeneration,  then,  is  being 
born  again"? 

A.  It  is  the  enunciation  of  orthodoxy  in  the  view  of  the  case  which 
he  is  there  examining.  If  you  mean  to  say  that  it  is  to  be  understood  as 
baptismal  regeneration,  then  we  do  not  accept  it. 

Q.  I  repeat  again,  are  not  immersion  and  regeneration  considered  aa 
synonymous  in  that  passage  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  immersion  is  not  fully  the  equivalent  of  regeneration. 

Q.  Did  not  Campbell  so  teach  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  so  teach. 

Q.  You  know  Campbell's  works,  do  you  not? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Well,  now,  I  will  ask  you,  did  not  Campbell  teach  that  baptism, 
repentance  and  those  other  things  commanded  in  the  commission,  were 
saving  ordinances? 


88  Our  Ortlwdoxy  in  the  Civil  Counts. 

A.  He  did.  He  would  have  violated  the  Scripture*  had  he  taught 
otherwise. 

Q.  Did  he  not  teach  that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  form  ol 
baptism? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Now,  are  not  the  doctrines  which  he  stated  the  teachings  of  your 
Church  to-day  ? 

A.  They  are,  in  the  main,  I  am  proud  to  say. 

Q.  Was  it  not  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  that  baptism  is  essential 
to  salvation ;  that  is,  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved  without  he  believes  and 
is  immersed  ? 

A.  No,  it  is  not,  when  speaking  absolutely. 

Q.  You  announce  that  your  Church  does  not  believe  that? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that  the  Church  does  not  teach  the  duty  of 
baptism. 

Q.  What,  then,  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  you  believe  that  bap- 
tism is  a  saving  ordinance? 

A.  It  is  that  baptism  is  the  final  act — it  initiates  a  man  into  the  king- 
dom of  Christ;  but  the  Christian  Church  does  not  believe,  nor  does  it 
preach,  the  doctrine  that  a  man  is  saved  simply  by  baptism ;  that  a  pious 
life  is  not  to  follow. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  if  a  man  can  be  saved  without  baptism,  is  it  not  a 
misnomer  to  call  it  a  saving  ordinance? 

A.  No,  sir;  because  it  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  orthodoxy. 
John  Wesley  taught  that  no  man  can  receive  salvation,  except  through 
baptism;  and  John  Calvin  swings  the  eternal  decrees  of  election  on  its 
hinges. 

Q.  I  repeat  my  question :  If  a  man  can  be  saved  without  it,  is  it  a  sav- 
ing ordinance  at  all? 

A.  Yes ;  for  the  reason  that  there  are  extraordinary  circumstances  in 
which  a  person  can  not  be  baptized.  But  baptism  is  a  commandment ;  and, 
if  a  man  can  obey  a  commandment,  yet  will  not  do  so,  the  gospel  reveal, 
no  way  by  which  the  willfully  disobedient  can  be  saved. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Luther  taught  transubstantation 
as  being  essential  to  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  said  that  he  seemed  to  accept  the  doctrine. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  Luther's  predecessors,  and  Luther  himself,  re- 
jected it ;  and  was  there  not  a  good  deal  of  discussion  over  it  ? 

//.  Yes,  sir ;  and  when  Mr.  Luther  had  his  celebrated  discussion  with 
Zwingli,  he  declared  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ ;  Luther  took  the  red  cloth  and  shook  it  in  the  face  of  Zwingli,  and 
declared  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  actually  transformed  into  the  body 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  89 

and  blood  of  Christ ;  and,  throwing  the  cloth  down  on  the  table,  turned 
and  left  the  discussion. 

Q.  Yes,  sir,  that  is  true ;  but  Luther  maintained  that  the  only  efficacy 
there  is  in  the  bread  and  wine  is  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  taken. 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Has  not  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on 
transubstantiation  been  rejected  by  the  Lutherans  ? 

A.  I  might  state  that,  theologically,  Martin  Luther  positively  re- 
nounced the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  transubstantiation ;  but  he  be- 
lieved, at  the  same  time,  that  there  was  a  mysterious  efficacy  in  the  bread 
and  wine. 

Q.  Is  not  that  held  to-day  ? 

A.  Some  churches  hold  it. 

Q.  Then  I  repeat  my  question,  Has  there  been  no  substantial  change 
in  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  since  the  beginning? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  accept  the  Scriptures  to-day,  and  always  did. 

Q.  Has  not  the  doctrine  of  your  Church,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  of 
the  other  churches,  changed  somewhat? 

A.  There  are  certain  changes  going  on  in  all  the  churches. 

Q.  Has  the  test  of  orthodoxy  been  at  all  over  these  accepted  doctrines  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  contest,  ever  since  the  year  1825,  has  been  over  the 
first  of  these  doctrines. 

Q.  As  they  are  held  now,  are  the  doctrines  of  your  Church  changed 
with  reference  to  the  Trinity  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  change  in  the  substantial  points. 

Q.  You  call  your  Church  "reformed" — you  say  it  is  not  sectarian. 
Will  you  tell  the  jury  briefly  some  of  the  points  wherein  it  is  different  from 
the  Baptist  Church  at  this  time? 

(This  question  was  withdrawn.) 

Q.  You  call  your  Church  "  the  Reformation."  The  gist  of  my  ques- 
tion is,  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

A.  When  Martin  Luther  left  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  he  made 
the  distinction  which  exists  to-day  between  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Protestants ;  and,  ever  since  that  time,  the  tendency  has  been  to 
get  back  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  After  Luther  came  the  movement 
under  John  Calvin  and  John  Knox ;  and  after  them  came  the  movement 
under  the  Wesleys  :  in  both  of  these  movements  important  elements  of  the 
apostolic  practice  were  brought  to  the  front.  When  we  speak  in  theology 
of  these  movements,  we  speak  of  them  as  "reformations;"  and  ours,  as 
the  last  movement  in  that  direction,  is  called  "the  current  Reformation." 

Q.  You  say  that  you  mention  that  as  being  the  Reformation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


go  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  with  reference  to  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  ? 

A.  It  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  agent  of  God  in  producing  con- 
version. 

Q.  What  evidence  is  there  of  its  being  exerted  on  any  person  in  con- 
version ? 

A.  That  is  a  matter  which  I  do  not  think  any  doctor  of  divinity  has 
ever  been  able  to  state  explicitly. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Campbell  state  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  did  explicitly,  except  that  the  gospel  is  the 
Spirit's  instrument. 

Q.  I  will  read,  Mr.  Witness,  and  ask  you  if  you  agree  with  this  state- 
ment of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit:  "The  Spirit  is  the  main  agency 
of  God  in  conversion  " — is  that  a  correct  statement  of  the  workings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  is. 

Q.  Is  that  theory  accepted  as  orthodox  ? 

A.  It  is  orthodox.  It  teaches  us  that  it  is  the  power  of  God,  through 
the  gospel,  in  producing  the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  the  sinner. 

Q.  Has  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  changed  any  since  the  announce- 
ment of  it  by  Mr.  Campbell? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  the  witness  answered.) 

A.  Well,  I  might  properly  say  that  there  has  been  no  change  of 
doctrine. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Witness,  have  you  not  stated  that  it  was  changed  ? 

A.  With  reference  to  that,  I  would  say  that  every  statement  which 
Mr.  Campbell  has  given  which  is  scriptural  we  accept.  I  would  not  state 
that  we  accept  everything  he  taught ;  because  he  was  only  a  man,  and  not 
divine.  We  do  not  accept  teachings  because  Mr.  Campbell  gave  them. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  have  not  accepted  everything  he  has 
said  on  any  one  subject  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  your  Church  teaches  at  the  present  time  that  there 
is  any  influence  of  the  Spirit  exerted  on  the  heart  of  a  man  only  as  it  is 
assisted  by  the  Divine  Word? 

A.  The  Spirit  works  through  His  Word. 

Q.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question.  Now,  sir,  I  will  ask  you 
what  you  think  of  this  doctrine — whether  you  consider  it  to  be  orthodox 
or  not:  "It  is  maintained  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  conversion  of  any 
man,  is  confined  to  the  arguments,  persuasions  and  inducements  that  are 
set  forth  in  the  written  Word."  Is  that  true  orthodox  doctrine  as  stated  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  hardly  orthodox  doctrine — I  think  it  is  a  correct 
opinion. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts,  91 

Q.  I  will  read  further.  Is  this  correct:  "Evident,  then,  it  is  from 
this  fact,  which,  I  presume,  I  may  also  call  an  incontrovertible  fact,  that 
no  light  is  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  regenerating  and  convert- 
ing men;  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  'in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the  Word  of  Truth"'?  I  ask 
you,  is  that  the  opinion  held  by  your  Church  at  the  present  time  upon  that 
subject? 

A  Well,  sir,  they  are  divided  upon  that.  There  are  people  in  the 
Church  who  believe  in  what  is  known  as  the  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit 
upon  the  heart  of  the  sinner;  and  there  are  those  who  do  not  accept  it, 
but  who  do  accept  the  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart  of  the 
Christian.  As  these  things  pertain  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  for  the  doing 
or  not  doing  of  which  men  are  in  no  way  responsible  (this  pertains  to  the 
Spirit  alone),  they  are  held  as  matters  of  opinion,  in  which  the  widest  lati- 
tude is  granted. 

Q.  Then,  I  will  read  this  and  ask  you  whether  or  not  it  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church:  "It  is  maintained  that  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  exercised  in  conversion,  that  it  operates  upon  the  mind  of  the  sin- 
ner." Is  that  true  orthodox  doctrine?  Is  that  accepted  in  your  Church 
as  orthodox  doctrine?  Would  you  call  it  so? 

A.  It  is  orthodox  doctrine,  so-called. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  repeat  the  question,  Is  it  expounded  as  true  doctrine 
by  your  Church? 

A.  Well,  I  will  have  to  answer  that  in  the  same  way  I  answered  your 
question  a  few  moments  ago. 

Q.  How  is  that  ? 

A.  That  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Church.  Please  under- 
stand that  these  questions  are  not  orthodox.  There  is  no  command  resting 
on  these  points,  and  every  one  may  have  his  opinion. 

Q.  I  will  read:  "In  the  New  Testament  we  are  informed  that  men 
were  to  be  sanctified-  through  the  truth — that  God's  Word  is  truth;  that  the 
Spirit  is  called  the  Spirit  of  truth ;  and,  hence,  for  these  reasons,  we  are  to 
look  for  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  applied  to  a  man's  heart,  in  the 
Word  of  truth,  and  when  this  has  been  fully  received  and  its  power 
exercised  a  man  will  be  sanctified — sanctified  through  the  truth."  Does 
your  Church  accept  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  It  accepts  that,  in  all  that  it  imports. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  that:  that  "it  accepts  that,  in  all  that  it 
imports"? 

A.  That  there  is  implied,  and  that  there  must  be,  an  obedience  to  the 
Word. 

Q.  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  does  your  Church  accept  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  possessed  more  than  ordinary  power  ? 


Q2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.  It  does.  I  would  say  that  He  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins 
of  men. 

Q.  Well,  was  He,  in  the  highest  sense,  possessed  of  the  dignity  of  a 
holy,  sacred  and  creative  being? 

A.  He  was,  in  the  very  highest  sense,  possessed  of  the  dignity  of  a 
holy,  sacred  and  creative  being. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  this  doctrine  is  accepted  by  your  Church  as  it  is 
related  to  the  Trinity. 

A.  It  is,  in  regard  to  the  Trinity. 

Q.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  your  Church,  as  yot  understand  it,  in  re- 
spect to  the  question  I  asked  you? 

A.  That  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  uncreated ;  that  He  indeed  is  the 
Creator;  but  that  his  humanity  was  created. 

Q.  Christ  was  not  wholly  uncreated,  then  ? 

A.  No,  not  wholly  uncreated,  because  His  manhood  was  created ;  His 
divinity  was  not  created. 

Q.  Now,  is  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  doctrine,  accepted  by 
your  Church? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.  It  is  accepted  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  personage,  and  that  it  is  one 
of  the  substantial  parts  of  the  Divine  Being. 

Q.  Well,  I  want  to  ask  you,  what  is  meant  by  that? 

A.  The  personage  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

Q.  Yes.  What  is  the  Holy  Spirit?  Is  it  equal  with  God  ?  Is  it  a 
part  of  the  Godhead,  according  to  the  doctrine  accepted  by  your  Church  ? 
Does  it  teach  so? 

A.  As  to  a  belief  of  the  doctrine  as  taught  since  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, I  desire  to  refer  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  if  you  please. 

(The  counsel  handed  the  witness  a  book.) 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  what  book  have  you  in  your  harr.1  ? 

A,  I  have  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  propose  to  read  from  the  book? 

A.  No,  sir ;  what  I  wanted  the  book  for  is  to  look  at  the  quotation  of 
a  passage  of  Scripture  concerning  the  Trinity. 

Q.  You  were  asked  a  moment  ago,  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  it  is  accepted  by  your  Church? 

A.  That  it  is  one  of  the  three  beings  known  as  the  Trinity;  for  the 
Apostle  says:  "There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these  three  are  one."  (I.  John  v.  7.) 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  it  is  a  part  o*  the  Divine  Being?  Is 
it  a  part  of  the  Godhead  itself? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  pj 

A.  It  is  a  part  of  the  Godhead  ;  but  whether  or  not  the  Spirit  is  dif. 
ferent  as  to  form  from  t1  e  Godhead,  in  the  way  the  question  is  meant,  I 
can  not  answer.  I  do  r  jt  believe  there  is  a  universally  accepted  belief  in 
the  Christian  Church  pon  that  particular  statement. 

Q.  Well,  I  will  ,sk  you,  does  your  Church  have  any  accepted  doctrine 
upon  the  subject? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  has. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Holy  Spirit  is  from  God. 

A.  Well,  I  rather  think  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  Spirit  proceeds 
from  God. 

Q.  Then,  if  I  understand  you,  your  Church  are  not  united  upon  that? 

A.  Well,  if  you  understand  me,  it  accepts  that  as  to  there  being  three 
personages  in  the  Godhead ;  but  as  to  the  phraseology  in  expressing  that, 
there  may  be  a  difference. 

Q.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  same  name  as  that  of  the  Father  ? 

A.  In  one  sense,  it  might  be  so  used. 

Q.  By  a  certain  figure  of  speech,  the  name,  in  its  signification,  means 
"  deity,"  so  far  as  power  is  concerned  ? 

A.  It  takes  the  three  to  make  up  the  Godhead,  and  they  are  the  same, 
so  far  as  power  is  concerned. 

Q.  Then  you  are  not  prepared  to  announce,  as  the  doctrine  of  your 
Church,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  in  the  highest  sense  of 
that  term? 

A.  I  am  prepared  to  announce  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Spirit  of 
God,  in  the  highest  sense  of  that  term. 

Q.  What  does  your  Church  accept  as  the  meaning  of  the  true  Trinity  ? 

A.  The  union  of  three  Divine  Personages  in  one. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.     Well,  can  you  define  the  word  "personage"? 

A.  Well,  I  think  it  is  assumed  as  representing  character. 

Q.  Will  you  define  what  is  meant  by  the  word  "trinity"? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  be  the  union  of  three  in  one* 

Q.  Can  you  tell  me  which  personage  in  the  Trinity  is  defined  to  be 
eternal  and  uncreated  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  say  which  one  is  defined  to  be 
eternal  and  uncreated. 

Q.  You  can  state  the  doctrines  of  your  Church,  can  you  not? 

A.  I  can. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Scriptures  have  no  teaching 
on  the  point  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  part  of  God  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  What  I  said  was  that  the  Scriptures  have  no  precise  ex- 
pression setting  forth  that  idea. 

().  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  doctrine,  or  idea,  is  not  taught 
in  the  Bible  ? 


94.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  you  understand  me,  but  I  did  not  say  that  the 
idea  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible. 

Q.  If  it  is,  then  your  Church  has  not  so  far  accepted  it  ? 

A.  One  of  us  is  dull. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  on  that  subject  ? 

A.  I  say  that  the  Bible  has  no  precise  expression  on  the  Spirit's  God- 
head. The  personal  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  an  object  of  worship, 
was  not  announced  until  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century,  and  this 
announcement  was  at  the  city  of  Constantinople. 

Q.  Well,  has  the  Bible  any  precise  idea  ? 

A.   I  think  it  has. 

Q.  Then,  will  you  answer  my  question  ?  If  the  Bible  has  taught  the 
doctrine,  has  your  Church  accepted  it,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  If  the  Bible  has  taught  the  doctrine,  so  as  to  make  its  belief  a 
matter  necessary  to  salvation,  the  Church  has  not  accepted  it;  but  the 
question  concludes  against  one  and  is  unfair.  The  Bible  does  not  teach 
the  doctrine  as  necessary  to  salvation. 

Q.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  your  Church  with  reference  to  the  so-called 
fall  of  man? 

A.  It  teaches  that  in  the  transgression  of  Adam  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin ;  that  all  men  are  under  the  condemnation,  for  that 
all  have  sinned ;  and  that,  as  set  forth  by  the  apostle,  an  atoning  sacrifice 
is  necessary,  in  consequence  of  these  things,  for  the  redemption  of  the 
human  family. 

Q.  What  is  original  sin,  as  the  doctrine  is  accepted  by  your  Church? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.  Original  sin  is  whatever  of  disposition  to  evil  men  may  have  in- 
herited in  consequence  of  sin  coming  into  the  world. 

Q.  Does  it  bear  any  relation  to  the  sin  of  Adam? 

A.  The  sin  of  Adam  is  reputed  to  be  its  father. 

Q.  Well,  what  do  you  mean  when  you  say  "  father"? 

A.  That  sin  entered  the  world  with  Adam's  sin. 

Q.  Is  that  an  accepted  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  think  that  it  is  accepted  by  all  the  Christian  churches. 

Q.  Can  there  be  such  a  thing  as  imputed  sin  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  has  the  existence  of  sin  to-day  any  connection  with  the  sin 
of  Adam? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  because  of  the  Adamic  transgression,  and  the  circum- 
stances following,  man  was  left  in  a  more  exposed  condition  to  sin.  Every 
conflict  and  struggle  in  life  may  increase  one's  liability  to  do  wrong :  for 
with  each  recurring  one  there  comes  a  new  presenting  of  right  and  wrong 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts.  95 

before  him,  and  as  the  number  increases  the  liability  increases  also.  So 
the  existence  of  sin  to-day  is  connected  with  the  sin  of  Adam  through  the 
sinful  circumstances  and  conditions  which  followed  that  sin. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  what  is  the  doctrine  in  your  Church  as  to  imputed 
sin  ?  Explain  as  near  as  you  can. 

A.  I  can  explain  only  by  stating  that  when  Adam  was  given  his  ex- 
istence in  the  world,  he  sinned;  and,  falling  under  the  condemnation  of  the 
divine  law  with  all  that  that  condemnation  meant,  therefore  a  sacrifice  for 
sin  became  necessary. 

Q.  Now,  you  have  stated  something  heretofore  about  certain  doc- 
trines ;  I  would  like  to  ask  you  to  state  briefly  what  the  doctrines  are  which 
determine  whether  or  not  a  church  is  orthodox. 

A.  There  are  an  acceptance  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  as  divinely  given 
and  obligatory,  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repentance,  and  baptism. 
These  are  essential  to  orthodoxy,  for  by  them  we  come  into  Christ. 

Q.  Can  you  give  an  illustration?  What  are  the  teachings  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  as  to  foreordination  and  predestination  ?  Are  these  accepted  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  I  understand  it,  does  not  to- 
day enforce  those  teachings.  They  are  dead  doctrines  in  a  living  creed. 

Q,  You  stated  that  the  orthodox  churches  believe  in  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  hearts  of  sinful  men  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  say  that. 

Q,  What  did  you  say? 

A.  1  said  that  the  offering  of  Christ  was  equally  for  all. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  upon  that  subject? 

A.  As  essential  to  orthodoxy,  I  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  offering 
of  Christ. 

Q.  Define  it.     Please  state  something  as  to  that. 

A.  God  sent  the  Saviour  into  the  world  to  be  offered  as  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice.  His  gospel  privileges  are  free  to  all— to  all  persons,  either  to  be 
received  or  rejected. 

Q.  And  the  Holy  Spirit  has  no  effect,  to  any  extent,  on  persons,  one 
way  or  the  other? 

A.  I  do  not  so  understand  it.     It  has  an  effect. 

Q.  What  has  it  to  do  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  ? 

A.  There  appears  to  be  a  good  deal  of  doctrine  upon  that  subject. 
The  effect  which  the  gospel  has  over  the  hearts  of  men  is  potent.  The 
Apostle  says  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation. 

Q.  Just  one  word  further:  If  a  man  accept  generally  the  doctrines 
of  your  Church,  and  does  not  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  nor 
that  all  the  things  related  in  the  Bible  are  true — would  that  act  as  a  debar- 
ment  to  membership  in  it? 

A.  He  could  not  enter  the  Church  without  such  faith. 


$6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

He-Direct  Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  one  or  two  propositions.  You  have 
spoken  of  the  Trinity,  stating  that  the  Christian  Church  accepts  the  Trin- 
ity, but  repudiates  certain  phraseology ;  what  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

A.  I  mean  by  that  that  the  formulated  statements  of  the  Trinity  are  not 
scriptural.  Whether  they  are  true  in  fact,  is  another  question.  The  sim- 
plest and  best  statement  of  the  Trinity  is  that  one  which  says,  "There  are 
three  which  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  tHe  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one." 

Q.  Well,  do  you  believe  and  teach  this  statement:  "God  the  Father"? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  Bible  continually  uses  the  terms  "Father"  and 
"God"  interchangeably.  It  is  correct  to  say,  "God  the  Father." 

Q.  Is  it  correct — that  is,  do  you  believe  and  teach  this  statement: 
"God  the  Son"?  A.  We  do.  John  says,  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  Then  the 
prophet  says,  "  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given  :  and  the 
government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder:  and  his  name  shall  be  called  Won- 
derful, Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince  of 
Peace."  And  the  Apostle  says  that  Jesus  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God."  We  do  believe  that.  Q.  Do  you  believe  and  teach 
this:  "  God  the  Holy  Ghost "?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  Why?  A.  Because  there 
is  no  such  statement  in  the  Bible.  Q.  Well,  this  one:  "The  Holy  Ghost 
is  the  very  and  eternal  God  "?  A.  No,  sir.  Q.  Why?  A.  Because  there 
is  no  such  statement  in  the  word  of  God.  Q.  But  may  it  not  be  a  proper 
construction  from  what  is  said  in  the  word  of  God?  A.  No,  sir;  by  no 
means.  No  such  construction  should  ever  be  placed,  by  the  teachings  of  a 
church,  upon  anything  in  the  Bible.  Constructions  upon  the  Bible — being 
wise  above  all  that  which  is  written — have  desolated  the  church  these  fifteen 
hundred  years.  The  Bible  contains  what  the  apostles  and  divinely  inspired 
writers  said  upon  those  points;  it  is  our  duty,  when  we  speak  as  a  Church 
of  God,  to  speak  their  speech.  This  is  right  procedure.  It  can  not  be 
wrong.  Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  state  that  the  procedure  which  you 
have  outlined  here,  as  the  position  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  the  proper 
one  for  a  church  to  take?  A.  This  unswerving  adherence  to  the  exact 
forms  of  gospel  statement,  and  this  Acts-of-Apostles  style  of  obedience,  is 
pure  Christianity.  It  is  safe,  infallibly  safe.  Q.  Orthodox?  A.  Divinely 
orthodox.  Q.  That  is  all.* 

*  Some  of  the  tettimony  having  inadverte  ntly  been  omitted,  in  preparing  the  plate*, 
we  have  been  compelled  to  use  this  condensed  style,  in  order  to  restore  it. — PUB. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SECTION  IV. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  W.   CHAPMAN. 

Mr.  Chapman,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn, 
testified  as  follows: 

Direct  Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  Will  you  state  your  name  to  the  court  and  jury? 

A.  George  W.  Chapman. 

Q.  Mr.  Chapman,  where  do  you  reside? 

A.  I  reside  in  Ligonier,  Indiana. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Ligonier? 

A.  About  eighteen  years. 

Q.  State  what  church  you  are  a  member  of,  if  of  any. 

A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Ligonier. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  that  Church  ? 

A.  I  have  been  a  member  of  that  Church  about  sixteen  years;  that  is, 
of  the  congregation  in  Ligonier. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  that  branch  of 
the  Church  designated  as  the  Christian  Church  ? 

A.  Since  the  year  1845. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  jury  whether  or  not  you  are  acquainted  with 
the  teaching  of  that  Church  in  matters  of  belief. 

A.  Well,  I  think  I  am  pretty  well  acquainted  with  the  theory  and 
practice. 

Q.  What  work  of  faith  and  practice  contains  the  doctrine  of  that 
Church? 

A.  "The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,"  so  far  as 
I  understand  it. 

Q.  What  is  the  belief  of  that  Church  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible? 

A.  The  belief  is  that  it  is  inspired  of  God.  The  following  Scripture 
expresses  the  belief  of  the  Church:  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in 
divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath 
in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son." 

97 


9<?  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  accepts  this  as  a  true 
statement  of  belief:  "I  believe  in  God  the  Father,  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth." 

A.  State  your  question  a  little  louder,  please. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  accepts  this  as  being  a 
true  statement  of  belief:  "I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker 
of  heaven  and  earth." 

A.  I  believe  that,  and  I  think  all  the  members  of  the  Church  do. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  this  doctrine: 
"I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son,  our  Lord:  who  was  begotten  by 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary ;  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
was  crucified,  dead  and  buried ;  he  descended  into  hell,  the  third  day  he 
rose  from  the  dead ;  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  God  the  Father  Almighty;  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead." 

A.  I  do ;  and  I  have  reason  to  think  it  does. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  this  doctrine : 
"I  believe  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  with  the  Father  from  eternity,  that 
he  ascended  from  the  dead  and  lives  through  eternity."  Do  you  believe 
that? 

A.  I  believe  that,  too,  and  I  think  it  does. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  this  proposition:  " I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  holy  Catholic  Church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting  "  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  state,  Mr.  Chapman,  whether  or  not  the  doctrines  of  your 
Church  are  in  harmony  with  the  doctrines  of  other  denominations  that  are 
orthodox  upon  the  essential  points  of  salvation. 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  is  an  orthodox 
denomination. 

A.  Well,  I  would  like  to  make  this  statement  before  I  answer  that 
question:  A  celebrated  Scotch  divine  once  said,  "Orthodoxy  is  my 'doxy,' 
and  heterodoxy  is  your  «doxy.*"  There  are  two  or  three  ways  to  answer 
your  question.  If  it  implies  whether  it  is  orthodox  or  heterodox,  I  would 
say  it  is  orthodox. 

Q.  You  would  say  it  is  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

A.  So  far  as  I  understand  it,  I  believe  it  does.  I  do  not  pretend  to 
be  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of  these  different  expressions. 

Q.  How  many  personal  manifestations  of  the  Deity,  or  Godhead,  are 
there? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  99 

A.  Three. 

Q.  What  are  they  ? 

A.  The  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Does  the  Christian  Church,  or  does  it  not,  believe  that  in  the  Deity, 
or  Godhead,  there  are  three  distinct  personages,  the  same  in  essence, 
power,  and  glory  ? 

A.  I  understand  the  Church  to  believe  that  there  are  three  distinct 
personalities.  In  the  Old  Testament,  these  are  known  as  God,  the  Word 
of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  it  is 
God,  Son  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Cross- Examination  by  the  Counsel  Jor  the  Defendant. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Witness,  you  say  that  you  are  not  very  conversant  with 
the  doctrine  of  your  Church — did  I  understand  you  to  say  that? 

A.  Well,  I  am  tolerably  conversant  with  it,  but  not  as  much  as  some 
others. 

Q.  Do  you  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  your  Church  believes  there  are 
three  personages  in  the  Trinity  ? 

A.  How? 

Q.  Do  you  know  it  to  be  a  fact  that  your  Church  believes  that  there 
are  three  personages  in  the  Trinity  ? 

A.  If  there  be  a  Trinity  at  all,  and  if  it  believes  it,  it  must.  I  think 
there  are ;  and  I  think  the  Church  does,  as  I  understand  it. 

Q.  What  your  Church  believes  is  not  what  you  may  think.  Do  you 
know  that  your  Church  believes  it  ? 

A.  Well,  I  can  say  that  the  congregation  to  which  I  belong  believes 
it — I  know  it  believes  there  are  three  personages  in  the  Trinity;  and  I  think 
it  is  the  general  belief. 

Q.  It  is  not  what  you  may  think  you  know  of  the  belief  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  I  want,  but  what  the  belief  of  the  Church  upon  this  subject 
really  is. 

A.  I  can  not  speak  for  the  whole  Church  as  to  its  belief  as  related  to 
the  different  denominations ;  but  I  can  say  for  myself  that  the  congrega- 
tion to  which  I  belong  believes  in  the  Father,  and  in  the  Son,  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  The  congregation  to  which  you  belong? 

A.  The  congregation  of  which  I  am  a  member. 

Q.  Then  you  pretend  to  speak  for  the  believers  at  Salem? 

A.  At  Ligonier. 

Q.  At  Ligonier  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  they  teach  any  thing  upon  the  subject  at  Salem; 
is  no  such  thing  as  the  Salem  Christian  Church. 


too  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tfie  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Where  is  the  church  that  is  interested  in  this  matter  ?  Is  it  the 
church  in  Ligonier  ? 

A.  No ;  and  I  do  not  know,  so  far  as  I  understand  it,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  our  congregation  out  there  are ;  but  the  preacher  was  allowed  to  go 
out  there,  though. 

Q.  Did  you  know  that  the  preacher  was  employed  to  go  out  there  and 
preach  ? 

A.  It  was  by  persons  living  on  the  Haw-Patch,  and  not  by  our 
members. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  the  preacher  received  any  thing  from 
the  Church  for  going  to  the  Haw-Patch? 

A.  Well,  I  have  done  what  I  could. 

Q.  Certainly.  I  am  not  speaking  of  any  one  of  them.  Now,  you  say 
that  the  Church  in  Ligonier  believes  that  there  are  three  personage*  In  the 
Trinity  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  there  are  God  the  Father,  and  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Spirit  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  though  there  is  no  Scripture  for  the  last  statement,  God 

Q.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  ?  [  the  Holy  Spirit. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  Spirit  is  denned  to  be  one  of  the  personages  in  the 
Godhead. 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  and  I  want  to  know  if  there  can  be  two  other  personages 
at  the  same  time. 

A.  How? 

Q.  Can  there  be  two  personages  at  the  same  time,  and  acting  in  dif- 
ferent respects? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  ask  you  .if  you  know  it  to  be  true  that  there  are 
three  personages  in  the  Godhead  ? 

A.  In  the  Scriptures  we  read  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Do  you  say  there  are  three  Gods — God  the  Father,  God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

A.  I  will  explain  what  I  mean  by  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  I  will  read  from  the  Scriptures  what  they  say  as  to  the 
deity  of  the  Son:  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God.  All  things  were  made  by  him;  and  without  him  was  not  anything 
made  that  was  made.  .  .  .  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  us,  (and  we  beheld  his  glory,  as  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of 
the  Father),  full  of  grace  and  truth."  (John  i.  1-3,  14.) 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  101 

Q.  You  can  state  whether  or  not  you  regard  it  as  such. 

A.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  to  say  that  there  are  three 
Gods.  I  want  to  be  understood  to  say  that  there  are  three  distinct  intelli- 
gences united  as  one  Godhead.  Being  thus  united,  as  explained,  there  are 
three  manifestations  of  the  Divine  Nature. 

Q.  Do  you  want  to  be  understood  to  say  that  there  are  three  person- 
ages? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  the  personages, 
are  they? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Three  distinct  and  separate  personages  ? 

A.  Three  distinct  and  separate  personages. 

Q.  Each  a  distinct  personage  unto  himself? 

A.  Well,  you  may  put  whatever  construction  upon  it  you  please. 

Q.  Then  you  would  not  say  that  they  are  one  being? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Are  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Son  one? 

A.  Well,  I  will  read — I  will  quote  the  Scriptures.  You  can  tell  what 
the  belief  is,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  by  what  they  say  :  "  For  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  (John  Hi.  16.) 
This  Son  said  to  the  disciples,  in  respect  to  everlasting  life:  "  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
(Mark  xvi.  15,  16.)  The  Apostle  John,  speaking  of  the  purpose  of  his 
gospel,  says:  "Many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of 
his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book.  But  these  are  written, 
that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that 
believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name."  (John  xx.  30,  31.)  Of 
the  Spirit  Jesus  says:  "Nevertheless,  I  tell  you  the  truth;  it  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come 
unto  you;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  He  is 
come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judg- 
ment :  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me ;  of  righteousness,  because 
I  go  to  my  Father,  and  ye  see  me  no  more ;  of  judgment,  because  the 
prince  of  this  world  is  judged.  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  to  you,  but 
ye  can  not  bear  them  now ;  howbeit,  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come, 
he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth."  (John  xvi.  7-13.)  Here  you  have  what 
the  Scriptures  say  as  to  the  respective  work  of  the  three  manifestations  of 
the  Divine  Nature  in  the  salvation  of  men,  and  what  the  Christian  Church 
believes  in  respect  to  them. 


IO2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  I  will  ask,  Mr.  Witness,  if  your  Church  accepts  this  doctmne  of 
three  distinct  personages  in  the  Trinity,  God  the  Father,  and  God  the  Son, 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost? 

A.   Yes,  sir;  with  the  exception  noted  before. 

Q.  Three  distinct  and  separate  personages? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  tell  the  jury  that  that  is  the  doctrine  of  your  Church? 

A.  In  fact,  I  do  not  say  another  word  about  it ;  there  is  the  word  of 
God:  "The  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall  not  err  therein." 

Q.  That  is  very  good  doctrine ;  so  is  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

A,  The  Bible  says  that  he  that  receives  the  Son,  receives  the  Father 
also. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  What  is  the  fact  as  to  the  doctrine  you  have  an- 
nounced being  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  at  Ligonier? 

A.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  at  Ligonier,  so  far  as  I  have  heard 
it  declared. 

Q.  As  accepted  by  the  members  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  some  churches  are 
orthodox,  and  some  are  heterodox.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  any  church 
which  accepts  the  Bible  has  a  right  to  put  its  own  belief,  or  its  own  con- 
struction, upon  the  Scriptures? 

A.  I  mean  that  any  person  has  the  right  to  read  the  Scriptures  for 
himself,  and  having  the  right  to  read,  he  has  the  right  to  interpret,  always 
having  in  view  his  responsibility. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  this  that  each  person  of  your  Church  has  the  right 
to  put  his  own  construction  on  the  Bible? 

A.  Each  member  has  a  right  to  put  such  construction  upon  the  Bible 
as  he  may  think  is  correct,  always  having  in  view  his  personal  responsi- 
bility. 

Q.  You  believe  that  ? 

A.  I  believe  it,  because  that  is  the  way  men  are  to  believe:  "But 
these  are  written,  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of 
God ;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 

Q.  But  still,  so  far  as  the  word  of  God  is  concerned,  each  member  of 
your  Church  has  a  right  to  put  his  own  construction  upon  it,  has  he  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  he  always  keeping  in  view  his  personal  responsibility ;  as 
every  one  has  a  personal  responsibility  of  his  own,  no  one  can  interpet  for 
him  so  as  to  meet  that  responsibility;  he  must  meet  that  himself — others 
can  only  help  him,  teach  him. 

Q.  Then  the  Church,  as  a  whole,  has  no  doctrine  at  all? 

A.  I  want  to  say  this,  or  make  this  remark,  that  every  person  has  the 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  zoj 

right  to  read  the  word  of  God,  or  have  it  truly  declared  to  him,  before  he 
believes ;  and  this  must  be  before  he  obtains  faith — the  true  faith. 

Q.  He  has  a  right  to  know? 

A.  He  has  a  right  to  know  and  understand,  to  be  assured  that  he  is 
right,  if  he  be  a  responsible  person. 

Q.  So  there  is,  of  course,  no  restraint ;  but  a  man  may  put  such  con- 
struction upon  the  Bible  as  he  thinks  right,  and  each  man  may  put  a  dif- 
ferent construction  upon  the  Bible? 

A.  Every  man  has  the  right  to  read  the  Bible  for  himself;  and  there 
is  no  more  danger  of  diversity  of  construction  in  so  doing  than  there  is  in 
reading  and  interpreting  a  creed,  or  other  book. 

Q.  Each  one  reads  the  Bible  for  himself? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  chooses  his  own  belief? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  but  they  will  all  come  to  the  same  belief  if  the  Bible  be 
read  in  the  same  way  and  for  the  same  purpose — if  it  be  read  in  view  of  the 
personal  responsibility  of  each  one. 

Q.  That  is  your  opinion ;  but  what  is  the  fact  in  the  case  as  related  to 
your  observation  in  this  matter  ? 

A.  So  far  as  I  have  noticed,  so  far  as  my  observation  extends  concern- 
ing it,  that  is  a  matter  of  fact. 

Q.  You  say,  "  If  they  all  read  it  for  the  same  purpose"? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is,  if  the  same  persons  try  to  believe  the  same  doctrine? 

A.  Yes,  sir :  if  they  try  to  believe,  they  will  all  believe  alike ;  and,  if 
they  read  ALL  that  the  Bible  says  upon  any  one  subject,  their  belief  will  be 
correct. 

Q.  You  think  that  thirty  persons  in  the  Christian  Church  could  not 
believe  one  way,  and  ten  some  other  way  ? 

A.  No,  I  do  not,  under  the  conditions  I  have  noted. 

Q.  Pertaining  to  any  one  single  question,  suppose  the  remaining  ten 
should  believe  some  other  way  ? 

A.  As  to  that  I  want  to  say,  on  subjects  not  necessary  to  his  salvation, 
when  a  person  reads  and  he  is  pursuaded  that  he  is  correct,  he  has  a  right 
to  his  opinion;  but  to  secure  his  salvation  the  Scriptures  make  it  impera- 
tive that  he  believe  in  Christ  and  obey  His  commands,  and  live  according 
to  the  Scriptures.  As  Peter  says,  he  must  "add  to  his  faith,  virtue;  and 
to  virtue,  knowledge ;  and  to  knowledge,  temperance ;  and  to  temperance, 
patience;  and  to  patience,  godliness;  and  to  godliness,  brotherly  kind- 
ness; and  to  brotherly  kindness,  charity.  For  if  these  things  be  in  you, 
and  abound,  they  make  you  that  ye  shall  neither  be  barren  nor  unfruitful 
in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (II.  Peter  i.  5-8.) 


104.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  That  is  very  good,  but  it  does  not  answer  my  question. 

A.  One  must  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God. 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  all  very  good ;  but  I  "asked  you  five  minutes  ago 
if  there  were  forty  persons  in  a  church,  whether  ten  of  them  could  not  put 
one  construction  upon  the  Bible,  and  the  remaining  thirty  another  con- 
struction ? 

A.  It  is  possible  for  forty  persons  to  read  the  Bible,  under  circum- 
•stances  different  from  what  I  have  stated,  and  some  of  them  put  a  different 
construction  upon  it  from  the  others ;  but  I  think  they  would  all  put  the 
same  construction  upon  it,  if  they  did  not  read  to  put  a  different  construc- 
tion upon  it. 

Q.  Well,  I  want  to  ask  you  this  question :  Does  the  Church  allow  a 
difference  of  belief  on  the  fundamental  doctrines? 

A.  No ;  because  if  they  did  the  Church  would  not  all  believe  the  same 
thing,  and  some  one's  salvation  would  be  imperiled. 

Q.  I  know;  but  may  they  not  put  a  different  construction  on  the  same 
words?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  there  are  a  great  many  different  constructions 
put  upon  the  word  "  trinity"  ? 

A.  There  may  be,  but  that  is  mere  speculation. 

Q.  Well,  as  to  the  word  "  being,"  are  there  not  a  great  many  different 
constructions  put  upon  it? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  I  presume  that  different  constructions  may  be 
placed  upon  it. 

Q.  Well,  in  other  words,  may  there  not  be  different  constructions  put 
upon  the  same  manifestations  of  it? 

A.  Do  you  mean  the  manifestations  of  true  being? 

Q.  I  mean  to  say,  does  the  Bible  not  teach,  and  do  not  Christians  re- 
gard it  as  true,  that  there  are  more  than  one  manifestation  of  the  same 
being? 

A.  Well,  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  Father  and  Son ;  whether  it  makes 
the  same  distinction  in  any  other  instance,  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  With  reference  to  the  question  as  to  the  construction  that  may  be 
put  upon  the  Bible,  you  are  too  remote  in  your  answer.  But  what  do  you 
say  with  reference  to  Christian  election  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  different  churches  ? 

A.  Now,  as  to  the  facts  of  the  gospel,  the  different  churches  are  in 
harmony,  and  therefore  orthodox.  For  instance,  they  all  teach  that  "with- 
out faith,  it  is  impossible  to  please  God."  This  faith,  however,  gathers 
about  the  facts  of  the  gospel,  and  not  about  their  theoretical  and  specula- 
tive dogmas. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  105 

Q.  You  say  that  your  Church  is  orthodox.  What  do  you  mean  by 
that  ?  What  is  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  define  the  term — what  I  mean  by  it  is 
that  we  accept  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  faith  and  practice. 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  but  who  is  to  put  such  construction  upon  them  as  is 
right  when  you  say  that  your  Church  accepts  them  as  the  word  of  faith 
and  practice? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  your  Church  is  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  mean  that  it  accepts  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  as  its  doctrine. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  mean  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  only  definition? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  I  give. 

Q.  You  accept  the  Scriptures  as  true? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  of  divine  origin. 

Q.  And  inspired? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  n't  you  know  that  there  are  more  than  one  construction  put  upon 
the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know — I  do  not  know  that  there  are  more  different  con- 
structions put  upon  the  Scriptures,  that  they  are  susceptible  of  more  con- 
structions, than  are  put  upon  the  different  human  creeds. 

Q.  Some  believe  they  mean  one  thing,  and  some  think  that  another 
construction  ought  to  be  put  upon  them. 

A.  Well,  I  will  give  you  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle:  "God,  who 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers 
by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son.'* 
( Hebrews  i.  I,  2.)  In  that  declaration  the  Apostle  affirms  that  God  and 
His  Son  have  spoken  to  men.  If  they  can  not  speak  so  as  to  not  be  justly 
liable  to  different  constructions,  then  I  despair  of  such  a  thing  ever  being 
done;  much  less  by  assemblies  of  men  which  construct  creeds,  confessions 
of  faith,  etc.  The  causes  for  the  different  constructions  of  the  Bible  are 
not  in  the  Bible  itself,  but  in  the  readers  of  the  Bible. 

Q.  Now,  you  call  yourselves  orthodox  because  you  accept  the  Script- 
ures. You  know  that  the  Unitarians  accept  the  Scriptures.  Are  they 
orthodox  ? 

A.  I  can  't  say. 

Q.  Mr.  Collier  accepted  the  Bible  in  his  arguments.     Is  he  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  can  not  tell. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  this  question :     Is  there  any  class  that  accept  the 


ro6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Bible  that  are  not  orthodox  ?  The  Universalists  accept  the  Bible.  Are 
they  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  can  not  tell. 

Q.  Are  they  in  theory  ?  Does  the  mere  acceptance  of  the  Bible  make 
the  Universalist  Church  orthodox? 

A.  If  they  have  in  faith  accepted  the  Bible  and  practice  its  teachings, 
I  think  they  are  orthodox.  If  they  have  truly  accepted  the  word  and 
practice  it,  I  think  they  ought  not  to  be  excluded.  I  can  understand  how 
many  Universalists  may  be  saved,  notwithstanding  they  may  train  under 
one  false  principle;  and,  if  they  are  saved,  they  certainly  ought  to  be 
counted  orthodox. 

Q.  Now,  then,  if  it  be  correct  that  the  acceptance  and  belief  of  the 
Bible  constitutes  orthodoxy,  then  the  Unitarians  are  orthodox. 

A .  That  does  not  follow  from  my  statement.  My  statement  is  this : 
They  are  to  accept  the  Bible  as  the  true  word  of  God  relating  to  the  salva- 
tion of  men,  and  they  are  to  follow  its  teaching.  This  will  make  any  one 
orthodox.  I  do  not  care  to  interfere  with  what  notions  men  have — I  want 
to  be  right  myself. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  if  your  assertion  is  true  that  to  accept  the  Bible  as 
the  inspired  and  true  word  of  God,  together  with  following  its  teaching, 
constitutes  orthodoxy,  is  not  every  one  who  does  the  same  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  should  think  so. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  Unitarians  and  Universalists  profess  to  accept  the 
Bible  as  true  and  to  follow  its  teaching,  you  would  regard  them  as  ortho- 
dox, so  far  as  that  is  concerned  ? 

A.  Mere  profession  would  not  make  them  orthodox  ;  but  if  they  really 
do  believe  the  Bible  and  follow  its  teaching,  I  do  not  see  how  they  ought 
to  be  excluded. 

Q.  How  is  that  ?    They  would  be  so  considered  ? 

A.  If  they  believe,  accept  and  practice  the  teaching  of  the  Bible. 

Q.  If  they  believe  and  practice  it,  you  would  consider  them  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  but  I  can  not  tell  whether  or  not  they  are  orthodox,  for  I 
do  not  know  what  their  teachings  are. 

Q.  Well,  is  there  anything  else  required  besides  faith  in  the  Bible  as 
the  word  of  God  ? 

A.  They  must  believe  in  the  Bible  as  the  true  word  of  God. 

Q.  Faith  is  the  one  great  requirement,  and  if  they  believe  they  are 
orthodox — is  that  your  answer  ? 

A.  They  must  have  faith,  or  belief,  in  the  Being  that  created  them. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  believe? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  it  exactly. 

Q.  And  that  is  what  you  believe  is  orthodoxy  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  think  so,  because  orthodoxy  relates  to  the  true  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  I  take  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  You  do  n't  say  that  it  says  so  in  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  So  far  as  I  have  read  them. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Witness,  passing  on,  I  believe  I  shall  ask  you  to  give  a 
direct  answer  to  this  question :  If  the  Universalists  and  Unitarians  accept 
the  Bible  as  inspired,  believe  and  follow  its  teaching,  are  they  not 
orthodox  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you,  sir — I  say,  if  the  acceptance  of  the  Bible, 
believing  its  doctrines  and  following  them — if  they  believe  in  these  things — 
if  the  Universalists  accept  the  Bible,  are  they  not  orthodox ;  if  they  have 
faith  in  it  and  follow  it  ? 

A.  If  they  have  faith  in  it  and  follow  it,  I  should  think  so. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.     You  mean  you  are  orthodox,  if  you  believe? 
x  A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do. 

Q.  Is  that  orthodoxy,  because  you  believe  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Merely  because  you  believe  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Re- Direct  Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  You  were  asked,  Mr.  Chapman,  whether  or  not  you  believe  in 
three  personages  in  the  Godhead.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  or  not 
these  three  personages  are  united  in  one  body — are  the  persons  united  in 
one  body? 

A.  Whether  or  not  the  three  persons  are  united  in  one  body,  I  will 
not  say;  but  as  there  is  one  human  nature,  and  millions  of  manifesta- 
tions of  it,  so  there  is  one  Divine  nature,  and  three  manifestations  of  it. 

Q.  In  one  Godhead? 

A.  In  one  Godhead. 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  the  personages  divine  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  my  idea  of  it. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Chapman,  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures, I  will  ask  you  what  are  the  cardinal  points  deemed  essential  by  the 
Christian  Church? 

A.  Faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  our  Saviour, 
repentance  or  turning  from  sin,  confessing  the  Lord  Jesus  as  the  Christ  and 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,  and  baptism. 

Q.  Do  you,  or  do  you  not,  mean   to  be  understood   that,  if  a  man 


io8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

merely  says  that  he  believes  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  true  word  of 
God,  he  has  a  right  to  put  any  interpretation,  however  absurd,  upon  it  ? 

A.  Oh !  no,  I  do  not  believe  that.  I  believe  that  he  must  apply  the 
accepted  rules  of  interpretation.  For  instance,  if  a  man  says  with  his  lips 
that  he  believes  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  word  of  the  living  God.  and  de- 
nies their  teachings  in  his  practical  life,  I  do  not  think  he  ought  tn  K«  ad- 
missible to  the  Church — I  do  not  think  he  is  orthodox. 

Q.  That  is  all. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

SECTION  V. 

TESTIMONY   OF  L.  L.  CARPENTER. 

L.  L.  Carpenter,  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn, 
testified  as  follows: 

Examination  in  Chief. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  your  name  to  the  court  and  jury? 

A.  My  name  is  L.  L.  Carpenter. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside,  Mr.  Carpenter? 

A,  I  reside  in  W  abash  town,  Wabash  county,  Indiana. 

Q.  Are  you  a  member  of  any  Protestant  religious  church? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  Of  what  church  are  you  a  member  ? 

A.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Church  commonly  known  as  the  Christian 
Church. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  member  of  that  Church  ? 

A.  It  will  be  thirty  years  the  i6th  day  of  next  August,  since  I  became 
a  member  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  You  may  state,  sir,  what  relation  you  sustain  to  that  Church? 

A.  At  present  I  am  what  is  known  among  our  people  as  the  State 
Evangelist — an  evangelist  appointed  by  our  State  Sunday-school  Asso- 
ciation. 

Q.  What  relation  to  the  Church  have  you  held  in  the  past? 

A.  I  have  been  for  the  past  twenty-six  years  a  recognized  preacher  in 
the  Church,  and  for  twelve  years  of  this  time  I  have  held  the  position  of 
State  Evangelist  by  the  appointment  of  either  the  State  Missionary  Associ- 
ation or  of  the  State  Sunday-school  Association. 

Q.  At  what  points  have  you  served  as  a  minister,  or  preacher? 

A.  I  have  served  as  such  at  Wabash.  That  is  where  I  live ;  I  have 
lived  there  for  thirteen  years.  I  was  pastor  of  our  Church  at  Fort  Wayne 
at  one  time.  In  my  evangelistic  work  as  State  Evangelist,  I  have  preached 
in  almost  every  part  of  the  State  of  Indiana.  I  have  also  been  a  pastor  in 
Ohio,  preaching  at  Wauseon  and  Moscow,  and  in  the  country  adjacent 
to  them. 

109 


no  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  What  is  the  membership  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  State  of 
Indiana? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  You  may  state,  Mr.  Witness,  whether  or  not  you  are  acquainted 
with  the  recognized  doctrines  or  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  in  this 
State,  and  throughout  the  United  States? 

A.  I  suppose  that  I  am.  I  have  been  identified  with  it  as  I  have  said  : 
and  I  have  been  a  careful  student  of  its  teachings  and  a  practical  worker 
in  their  dissemination.  I  suppose  I  can  say  I  am  acquainted  with  its 
teaching. 

Q.  You  may  state,  if  you  please,  what  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice 
ts  in  the  Christian  Church. 

A.  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  accepted  as  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  by  the  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  accept  the  Scriptures  as  being  inspired,  or  only  as  being  of 
human  origin  ? 

A.  We  accept  them  as  being  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  being  the 
revelation  which  God  has  given  men  of  Himself  and  His  will  through  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  You  may  state,  sir,  whether  there  be  a  written,  printed  or  form- 
ulated creed,  or  doctrine,  which  has  been  recognized  as  such  by  the 
Church. 

A.  The  Church  has  no  written,  or  printed  or  formulated  creed,  except 
the  Bible — it  takes  the  Bible  only  as  its  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
every  person  has  the  right  to  read  the  Bible  for  himself. 

Q.  You  may  state,  if  you  please,  sir,  what  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  Church,  of  which  you  are  a  member,  are. 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  will  restate  what  I  have  already  said,  that  the  Church 
accepts  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  its  only  rule  of 
faith  and  practice ;  and  it  regards  them  as  the  only  authority  in  determin- 
ing the  matters  of  salvation.  The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  doc- 
trine  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  this :  Are  the  statements  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Christian  Church  orthodox  ?  I  mean  by  my  question,  whether  or  not  the 
Christian  Church,  of  which  you  have  been  speaking,  is  an  orthodox 
denomination. 

A.  Of  course,  if  I  answer  that  question  from  my  standpoint,  I  must 
say  I  think  it  is,  sir.  If  I  did  not  think  so,  I  would  not  be  identified  with  it. 

Q.  You  may  now  state  what  the  doctrines  are  which  are  taught  by 
the  Church  as  requisite  or  essential  to  the  admission  of  members  into  the 
Church. 

A.  The  Church  believes  and  teaches  that,  in  becoming  a  member  of 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  in 

the  Church,  an  individual  must  be  regenerated,  or  born  again;  just  as  the 
Saviour  taught  Nicodemus:  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a 
man  be  born  again,  he  can  not  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Nicodemus  saith 
unto  him,  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old?  Can  he  enter  the 
second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born?  Jesus  answered,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  of  the  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  (John  iii.  3-5.)  To 
specify  what  the  Saviour  is  understood  to  have  meant  by  being  "born 
again,"  I  may  state  that  the  Church  believes  and  teaches  that  men,  in  their 
unconverted  state,  are  sinners,  and  that  they  are  not  able  to  save  them- 
selves from  their  sins;  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  His  propitiation  for 
the  sins  of  the  world,  made  provisions  for  their  salvation,  and  consequently 
that  He  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for  sins ;  that  men  are  to  be  saved  through 
the  efficacy  of  His  blood;  that  "the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleans- 
eth  us  from  all  sin."  In  receiving  the  blessings  of  the  applied  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  being  cleansed  from  all  sin,  the  Church  believes  and  teaches 
that  there  is,  as  the  Saviour  says,  a  process  of  being  born  again ;  that  in 
this  process  of  being  born  again  there  is  first  the  being  begotten  by  the 
Word  of  truth  through  the  Spirit,  which  induces  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Son 
of  God,  and  produces  trust  in  Him  as  the  Saviour  of  men,  then  the  growth 
of  this  living  principle  until  it  produces  a  repentance  of  sin  (a  turning  to 
a  reformed  life )  and  a  confession  before  men  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God, 
then  a  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit, — which  is  the  consummating  act  in  the  process  of  being  born 
again,  the  being"born  of  water."  Now,  when  an  individual  is  thus  born 
again  of  the  water  and  the  Spirit,  the  Church  believes  and  teaches  that  he 
is  born  into  the  family  of  God  (which  is  but  another  name  for  the  Church), 
and  that,  therefore,  he  becomes  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Of 
course,  after  thus  being  born  into  the  household  of  faith,  the  Church  be- 
lieves and  teaches  that  he  must  live  a  Christian  life,  he  must  continue  stead- 
fast, in  order  to  obtain  the  final  and  great  salvation  in  heaven. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  continuing  steadfast  ? 

A.  Well,  I  mean  continuing  to  live  a  Christian  life. 

Q.  What  must  be  observed  in  order  to  do  that? 

A.  The  Church  regards  a  great  many  things  as  necessary;  perhaps 
this  statement  will  cover  the  whole  ground  :  "And  they  continued  stead- 
fastly in  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread, 
and  in  prayers."  (Acts  ii.  42.)  This  is  understood  to  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  Christian  duty. 

Q.  You  may  state,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  doctrines  taught  by  the 
Christian  Church  as  being  essential  to  entitle  one  to  an  admission  into  the 
Church  of  Christ  are,  in  substance,  the  recognized  theological  doctrines  of 
the  Protestant  Christian  churches  of  the  present  age. 


112  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  think  there  is  a  great  similarity  in  the  teachings  of  the  Christian 
Church  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  salvation,  to  that  taught  by  the  other 
denominations.  I  mean  by  this  that  the  essential  requirements  of  salva- 
tion, as  set  forth  by  the  Christian  Church,  are  accepted  by  all  Protestant 
Christians  everywhere,  in  that  they  will  admit,  if  those  requirements  are 
faithfully  observed,  are  obeyed  with  a  true  heart,  that  the  party  so  doing 
is  entitled  to  salvation  under  the  promises  of  the  gospel. 

Q.  You  may  state  in  what  manner  baptism  is  practiced  by  the  Christian 
Church. 

A.  It  is  by  immersion — immersion  of  the  penitent  believer  in  water, 
upon  confession  of  his  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. 

Q.  Does  the  Church  believe  the  teaching  that  immersion  alone,  im- 
mersion without  faith,  without  repentance,  without  confession,  avails  any- 
thing to  the  salvation  of  the  soul? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  believes  and  teaches  that  it  would  be  blasphemy  before 
God. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  believes  and 
teaches,  as  a  Church,  that  a  person  who  has  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  the  living  God — who  believes  upon  Him,  repents  of  his  sins,  and  con- 
fesses Him  before  men,  but  who  thinks  that  baptism  may  be  performed 
by  sprinkling  or  immersion  either — would  he  be  lost,  or  would  he  be 
saved  ? 

A.  The  Christian  Church  does  not  make  any  attempt  to  enter  the 
secret  chambers  of  the  Most  High  and  declare  what  God  must  do  in  all 
the  exigencies  of  human  life; — it  is  my  own  opinion  that  there  are  some 
persons,  under  the  conditions  stated,  who  may  be  saved ; — but  it  does  insist 
upon  it  that  it  is  by  all  odds  the  safest  thing  to  be  baptized  in  that  way 
which  has  been  during  all  the  Christian  era,  and  is  now  by  all  Christians, 
admitted  to  be  baptism.  In  its  work  for  the  salvation  of  men,  it  wants  to 
take  no  chances;  nor  by  its  example  to  induce  others  to  do  so. 

Q.  Then  it  is  not  in  the  rite  of  baptism  that  the  distinction  is  made ; 
but  it  is  somewhat  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  administered? 

A.  The  Christian  Church  believes  that  only  immersion  is  baptism,  ana 
that  in  this  way  the  command  in  respect  to  it  is  to  be  obeyed. 

Q.  Then,  as  a  rite,  does  it  differ  from  the  so-called  orthodox  concep- 
tion of  baptism,  as  taught  by  the  Christian  Church  ? 

A.  The  Christian  Church  believes  and  teaches  that  there  is  no  effi- 
cacy in  the  simple  act  of  baptism,  that  it  alone  should  be  made  necessary 
to  salvation.  It  becomes  necessary  because  it  is  one  of  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  the  efficacy  to  save  from  sin  is  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  which  is  appropriated  and  applied  to  the  conscience  by  obedi- 
ence to  His  commands. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  ttj 

Q.  Is  baptism  the  initiatory  step? 

A.  It  is  held  that,  as  related  to  the  process  of  being  born  again,  it  is 
the  consummating  act ;  but,  as  it  is  related  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  it  is 
what  may  be  called  the  initiatory  step  by  which  one  enters  the  Church — 
just  as  the  birth  is  the  consummating  act  of  being  born,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  means  by  which  the  child  enters  and  becomes  a  part  of  the 
family. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  mean  that  this  identifies  him  with  the 
Church? 

A.  I  mean  that  just  as  the  act  of  birth  identifies  the  child  with  the 
family,  so  does  the  consummating  act  in  being  born  again  identify  an  indi- 
vidual with  the  Church  of  the  Living  God.  It  is  at  the  consummation  of 
the  new  birth  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  granted,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  repentance  and  baptism  as  expressed  by  the  Apostle  Peter:  "  Re- 
pent and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  foi 
the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'* 
(Acts  li.  38.) 

Q.  It  would  be,  then,  an  act  of  external  recognition  ? 

A.  It  would  be  an  external  act  of  recognition. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  the  doctrines,  or  teachings  of  the  Christian 
Church  are  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity? 

A.  We  believe  in  God,  and  recognize  a  plurality,  a  trinity,  in  the  God- 
head, as  I  think  it  is  usually  received  by  the  religious  world ;  that  is,  the 
Church  believes  in  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  at 
the  same  time  leaves  all  formulation  of  these  ineffably  grand  conceptions 
of  the  Deity  to  the  form  of  the  Scripture  statement:  "There  are  three 
that  bear  record  in  heaven :  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost : 
and  these  three  are  one."  ( I.  John  v.  7.) 

Q.  What  is  the  character  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  compared  with  each  other  ? 

A.  It  is  believed  that  they  are  one  and  equal ;  at  least  this  is  asserted, 
in  the  Scriptures,  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

Q.  One  in  substance  ? 

A.  Probably  one  in  substance. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church,  of  which  you 
have  been  speaking,  is  admitted  into  the  Evangelical  Alliance? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  (By  the  Court),  What  is  the  Evangelical  Alliance  composed  of? 
what  constitutes  it? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  answer  that  question  fully. 
As  I  understand  it,  it  is  an  association,  a  religious  organization,  composed 
of  religious  people  of  the  various  different  churches,  to  advance  the  com- 
mon interests  of  Christianity, 
o 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Is  orthodoxy  essential  to  admission  into  the  Evangelical  Alliance? 

A.  I  can  not  say  as  to  whether  so-called  orthodoxy  is  essential  to  ad- 
mission  into  the  Alliance  or  not;  they  probably  have  a  statement,  similar 
to  the  one  set  forth  by  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  defining  the 
term  "evangelical,"  to  which  assent  is  required. 

Q.  What  is  the  statement  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association, 
to  which  you  refer  ? 

A.  As  well  as  I  remember,  it  is  this  [  the  editor  has  taken  the  liberty 
to  give  this  statement  correctly]:  "And  we  hold  those  churches  to  be 
evangelical  which,  maintaining  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  only  infalli- 
ble rule  of  faith  and  practice,  do  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (the 
only  begotten  of  the  Father,  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  in  whom 
dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  and  who  was  made  sin 
for  us,  though  knowing  no  sin,  bearing  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the 
tree)  as  the  only  name  under  heaven  whereby  we  must  be  saved  from  ever- 
lasting punishment."  ( Constitution  Y.  M.  C.  A.) 

Q.  What  is  the  difference,  if  any,  in  the  application  by  the  various 
religious  denominations  of  the  two  terms — "evangelical"  and  "  orthodox"  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.  My  own  judgment  is  that  members  who  are  not  orthodox  are  not 
evangelical.  I  think  that  evangelical  people  are  orthodox,  and  that  ortho- 
dox people  are  evangelical. 

Q.  Now,  if  I  understand  you,  you  have  stated  that  when  any  religious 
denomination  is  admitted  into  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  it  must  be  either 
orthodox  or  evangelical  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  constitutes  the  membership  of  the  Evangelical 
Alliance  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  number  of  churches  having  membership  in  the 
Alliance;  but  I  understand  that  a  church,  to  be  recognized,  must  be  a  so- 
called  orthodox  or  evangelical  church — this  is  my  understanding. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  what  your  knowledge  is  as  to  the  Unitarian 
Church  being  admitted  or  excluded  trom  it. 

A.  I  have  never  known  members  of  that  Church  to  be  admitted  my- 
self; my  understanding  is  that  they  are  not  admitted. 

Q.  ( By  the  Court).  You  understand  evangelical  and  orthodox  to  be 
synonymous  terms? 

A.  As  I  understand  it,  an  evangelical  church  would  be  recognized  as 
an  orthodox  one. 

Q.  Are  these  terms  used  in  that  sense  by  the  Evangelical  Alliance? 

A.  I  can  not  answer  for  the  Evangelical  Alliance. 

Q.  I  mean  the  organizations,  the  churches  connected  with  it. 


Our  Onhodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  7/5 

A.  I  think  they  are — that  would  be  my  opinion. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Witness,  whether  or  not  the  Disciples'  Church, 
or  Christian  Church,  has  been  recognized  so  that  its  members  are  admitted 
to  membership  by  the  Evangelical  Alliance? 

A.  My  understanding  is  that  it  has  been. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  the  Presbyterian,  and 
orther  churches,  do  in  the  way  of  recognizing  you. 

A.  I  have  always  been  admitted,  and  there  has  never  been  any  objec- 
tion on  the  part  of  any  one,  to  their  conventions,  associations,  presbyteries, 
conferences,  etc.,  where  I  have  happened  to  go,  just  as  the  ministers  of 
the  other  churches  were  admitted,  having  frequently  had  the  honor  con- 
ferred upon  me  of  visiting  member  of  the  convention  by  its  own  vote,  and 
invited  to  take  part  with  them  in  their  deliberations. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  by  this  admission  to  their  conventions,  etc.,  that  you 
received  a  personal  courtesy,  or  was  it  on  account  of  your  Church  ? 

A.  What  these  conventions  intended  by  these  acts  of  courtesy,  I  would 
not  say;  but  in  the  arrangements  for  the  Week  of  Prayer  where  I  have 
labored,  which  was  arranged  for  and  carried  out  under  the  suggestion  and 
direction  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  I  and  my  Church  have  been  treated 
just  as  the  other  pastors  and  churches — there  has  been  no  difference. 

Q.  You  were  speaking  with  reference  to  the  Christian  Church  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  you  were  admitted  to  these  meetings  as  a 
member  or  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church. 

A.  I  have  never  heard  this  mentioned  by  them.  When  I  first  located 
at  Fort  Wayne,  the  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian 
Churches  sought  me  out  and  invited  me  to  take  part  in  making  the  arrange- 
ments for  the  Week  of  Prayer. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  you  were  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church  at 
Fort  Wayne  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  they  were  making  arrangements  for  a  meeting? 

A.  Ves,  sir ;  when  I  first  went  to  Fort  Wayne  they  were  making  ar- 
rangements in  their  Ministerial  Association  for  the  meetings  during  the 
Week  of  Prayer.  As  the  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church  there,  they  in- 
rited  me  to  take  part  in  making  arrangements  for  these  meetings.  In  the 
meetings  of  this  Association  I  never  heard  any  reference  made  to  the  mat- 
ter of  scholastic  creeds. 

Q.  Have  your  people  any  general  body  or  convention  of  any  kind  ? 

A.  For  a  few  years  our  churches  in  this  country  have  held  conventions 
for  mutual  acquaintance,  consultation,  and  discussion. 

Q.  Of  what  are  those  conventions  composed  ? 


n6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  They  are  composed  of  members  of  the  churches,  sent  as  delegates 
or  otherwise. 

Q.  Of  whom  are  the  conventions  composed  ? 

A.  They  are  composed  of  delegates  or  other  members  from  the  dif- 
ferent churches  throughout  the  United  States.  These  are  missionary  or 
Sunday-school  conventions — they  have  no  legislative  authority  from  the 
churches,  and  hence  they  do  not  seek  to  establish  or  change  faith  and  prac- 
tice in  the  churches,  leaving  every  thing  involved  in  that  as  it  is  found  in 
the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Do  you  have  any  conventions  in  the  State  of  Indiana  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  we  have  what  are  called  State  conventions:  the  Stat* 
Sunday-school  Association,  the  State  Ministerial  Association,  the  St?te  Mis- 
sionary Association,  and  Woman's  Board  of  Missions. 

Q.  How  often  does  the  General  Convention  meet? 

A.  Once  a  year. 

Q.  How  often  do  the  State  conventions  meet  ? 

A.  Once  a  year. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  the  form  of  church  government  is  ii,  ihc 
Christian  Church? 

A.  It  is  what  is  known  as  the  congregational  form. 

Cross- Examination  by  the  Counsel  Jor  the  Defendant. 

Q.  Mr.  Carpenter,  do  you  understand  evangelical  and  orthodoi  to 
have  any  relation  in  meaning? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  the  two  terms  are  related  in  meaning. 

Q.  What  does  the  word  evangelical  mean  ? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  mean  that  which  belongs  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Scriptures,  especially  the  gospel,  the  truth  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Q.  What  is  the  accepted  or  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term  evangelical, 
•r  evangelist  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  what  you  mean  by  your  question ;  but,  if  it 
refers  to  a  preacher,  then  I  understand  the  term  evangelist  to  mean  one 
who  goes  from  place  to  place  preaching  the  gospel,  or  truth,  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  convert  the  people  to  Christ. 

Q.  Are  your  teachings  evangelical  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  the  work  of  an  evangelist  is  to  convert  the  people  to 
Christ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  An  evangelist  is  one  who  goes  out  to  preach  the  gospel? 

A.  I  think  that  a  person  who  goes  out  to  preach,  and  preaches  the  Bible 
doctrine,  is  an  evangelical  preacher. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  7/7 

Q.  Now,  what  do  you  understand  by  the  word  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  mean  a  correct  faith,  a  belief  in  the  doctrine* 
which  are  truly  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  What  is  the  standard  of  that  faith  or  belief? 

A.  The  Bible  itself. 

Q.  Any  particular  portion  of  the  Bible? 

A.  Well,  orthodoxy  is  the  correct  belief  or  teachings  of  the  whole 
Bible. 

Q.  Do  you  receive  all  the  Bible — the  Old  and  New  Testaments? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  whole  Bible  is  received  by  the  Christian  Church. 
The  Old  Testament  gives  the  teachings  and  institutions  of  Moses,  the  holy 
inspirations  and  aspirations  of  devout  and  pious  men,  and  the  predeclara- 
tions  of  prophetic  inspiration — all  of  these  are  necessary  to  give  the  true 
teaching  of  God  to  men  in  His  revelation ;  but  these  are  valuable  chiefly 
because  they  point  to  a  fuller  development  of  them  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ 
and  to  His  institutions,  which  are  to  be  found  alone  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  gives  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  both  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Divine  Witness  to  the  truth,  and  as  a  personal  Saviour,  which  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  receive  the  benefit  of  His  institutions.  As  thus  explained, 
the  Christian  Church  accepts  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  containing 
the  full  revelation  which  God  has  given  to  men. 

Q.  Then  you  do  accept  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Scriptures? 

A,  Yes,  sir ;  they  are  accepted  as  the  complete  revelation  of  God  to 
man;  but,  for  the  reason  that  the  New  Testament  contains  the  teaching 
and  instructions  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles,  in  the  preaching  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  greater  prominence  is  given  to  the  New  than  to  the  Old 
Testament. 

Q,  I  do  not  know  as  I  asked  you  that. 

A.  But  I  see  it  has  been  spoken  of,  and  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  un- 
derstand our  people. 

Q.  I  asked  you  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church,  as  a  church,  be- 
lieves that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  inspired  and  are  of  divine 
authority  ? 

A.  The  Christian  Church  believes,  sir,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  in- 
•pired,  just  the  same  as  the  New  Testament  is,  and  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
revelation  which  God  has  given  to  men. 

Q.  Does  the  Church  believe  that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  in- 
spired and  hold  good  to-day — that  is,  does  it  believe  than  any  portion  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  now  in  force? 

A.  As  a  revelation  of  truth,  it  believes  the  Old  Testament  to  be  as 
true  now  as  it  ever  was,  and  will  ever  continue  to  be  ;  but  as  to  the  insti- 
tutions, worship,  and  service  of  Moses,  it  believes  they  were  taken  out  of 


u8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

the  way,  not  to  be  observed  any  more,  being  nailed  to  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Paul  says  of  God,  among  other  things  He  was  doing,  "  Blotting  out  the 
handwriting  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us, 
nailing  it  to  his  cross."  (Colossians  ii.  14.) 

Q.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that  it  is  believed  that  the  law  of  the 
Old  Bible  is  no  longer  in  force  ? 

A.  Perhaps  an  explanation  is  necessary.  It  is  believed  that  men  are 
not  now  required  to  observe  the  law  which  was  contained  in  ordinances; 
for  it  was  nailed  to  the  cross  of  Christ  and  taken  out  of  the  way.  For  in- 
stance :  It  is  not  believed  that  men  are  now  required  to  observe  what  is 
called  the  Sabbath  on  the  seventh  day,  for,  while  there  may  be  a  great 
principle  in  nature  which  requires  a  seventh  day  rest,  and  which  remains 
unchanged,  it  is  believed  that  the  positive  character  of  the  law  of  the 
Sabbath  which  required  its  observance  on  the  last  day  of  the  week,  with 
the  other  parts  of  the  handwriting  of  ordinances,  was  nailed  to  the  cross; 
and  therefore  the  Christian  Church,  while  it  observes  the  unchangeable 
principle  of  a  seventh-day  rest  (that  is,  one  day's  rest  in  seven),  keeps  the 
first  day  of  the  week  sacred  because  of  the  resurrection  of  the  divine 
Saviour  from  the  dead  on  that  day,  in  accordance  with  the  apostolic  ex- 
ample. And  further :  inasmuch  as  Jesus  has  made  an  atonement  for  our 
sins,  it  is  believed  that  we  are  not  now  required  to  bring  animals  to  be  sac- 
rificed upon  the  altar  as  they  were  under  the  law ;  but  that  it  is  our  duty 
now  to  "offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually — that  is,  the  fruit 
of  our  lips,  giving  thanks  to  his  name,"  and  to  do  this  we  assemble  in  our 
sanctuaries  every  Lord's  day. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  think  the  ten  commandments  are  inspired? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  believed  that  the  ten  commandments  are  inspired. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  the 
same  force  now? 

A.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  put  into  three  divisions  by 
the  Saviour :  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  The  Law  refers  to 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  containing  the  handwriting  of  ordinances  which 
was  nailed  to  the  cross ;  the  Prophets  refers  to  all  those  books  which  give 
a  record  of  events  both  past  and  future ;  and  the  Psalms  refers  to  those 
books  which  give  the  outflowing  of  devout  hearts,  the  lofty  praise  and 
thanksgiving  of  inspired  souls,  and  the  principles  of  moral  life.  All  of 
these  are  valuable:  the  first  as  giving  the  rise  and  establishment  of  a 
Theocracy  among  men  ;  the  second  as  giving  the  history  of  that  Theocracy 
and  unfolding  the  on-coming  future ;  the  third  as  giving  the  principles  of 
moral  right  and  the  loftiest  exultation  of  the  devoutly  pious  heart.  In  this 
sense,  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  in  force ;  which  one  more 
than  the  other,  if  at  all.  I  can  not  say. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  ng 

Q.  All  of  it  is  divine? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  all  its  requirements  in  force?     Are  they  not  if  it  is  divine? 

A.  All  the  positive  requirements  of  God  having  filled  their  specific 
missions,  cease  to  be  of  force;  the  obligations  of  the  moral  principles, 
having  as  they  do  a  continuous  mission,  and  being  right  in  the  nature  of 
things,  remain  in  force.  Hence  I  should  say  that  all  the  moral  laws  of 
the  Old  Testament,  being  divine,  are  still  in  force. 

Q.  I  speak  especially  of  the  ten  commandments. 

A.  I  say,  as  I  have  before  explained,  that  the  Christian  Church  be- 
lieves that  the  ten  commandments,  so  far  as  the  moral  principle  involved 
in  them  is  concerned,  are  divine  and  still  in  force;  especially  that  one 
which  says,  "Thou  shall  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor."  For 
instance,  in  the  fourth  commandment,  the  Lord  says,  "  Remember  the 
Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,"  and  this  Sabbath  day  is  explained  to  be  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week;  but  the  principle  of  a  seventh  day  rest  remains 
the  same,  whether  the  rest  be  observed  on  the  first,  the  last,  or  any  other 
day  of  the  week ;  hence  this  rest  was  confined  to  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  by  the  positive  enactment  of  the  Lord.  The  Christian  Church  be- 
lieves all  these  positive  enactments  of  the  Lord  in  the  dispensations  ante- 
Christian  were  nailed  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  taken  out  of  the  way, 
giving  place  to  the  positive  requirements  of  the  Christian  dispensation ; 
hence  it  keeps  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest,  thus  ob- 
serving the  moral  principle  involved  in  the  command.  I  hope  it  is  now 
plain  that  the  Christian  Church,  so  far  as  the  moral  principle  involved  in 
the  ten  commandments  is  concerned,  accepts  them  as  obligatory ;  but  so 
far  as  their  positive  requirements  are  concerned,  it  does  not  believe  them 
to  be  now  in  force. 

Q.  Is  there  now,  or  has  there  ever  been,  any  formulated  creed  in  your 
Church? 

A.  The  Scriptures  constitute  the  creed  of  our  Church. 

Q.  That  is,  you  mean  the  whole  of  the  Scriptures  ? 

A,  The  Christian  Church  accepts  the  Scriptures  as  its  rule  of  faith 
and  practice;  it  has  no  creed  outside  of  that. 

Q.  No  creed  that  has  been  heard  of? 

A.  I  never  heard  of  any. 

Q.  No  creed  that  you  have  heard  of? 

A.  I  have  never  heard  of  any,  and  I  have  been  in  position  to  know. 

Q.  Men  will  differ.  In  the  event  of  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  any 
subject  or  any  portion  of  the  Bible,  either  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament, 
springing  up  between  the  members  of  your  Church,  or  between  the 
preachers  of  your  denomination,  how  do  you  settle  that  difference  of 
opinion  ? 


I2O  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts, 

A.  Well,  in  respect  to  that,  we  have  to  do  in  manner  as  the  other 
churches  do.  There  is,  however,  a  difference  between  them  and  us. 
When  they  arraign  a  man  and  try  him,  they  do  it  by  their  standard,  the 
creed — as  Dr.  Swing  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  Dr.  Thomas  by  the  Method- 
ists ;  and  when  we  arraign  a  man  and  try  him,  we  do  it  by  our  creed,  but 
that  is  the  Bible  itself. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  the  question  of  membership  is  concerned,  the  ulti- 
mate judge  of  it  is  the  membership  of  the  Church? 

A.  1  do  not  know  that  I  understand  the  point  of  your  question. 

Q.  I  say,  then,  so  far  as  questions  of  belief  and  the  acceptation  and  in 
terpretation  of  the  Scriptures  are  concerned,  the  ultimate  judge  in  the 
case  is  the  membership  of  the  particular  church  where  the  difference 
arises? 

A.  Well,  it  is  not  probable  that  our  people  will  have  any  serious  dif- 
ferences ;  for,  in  the  matters  essential  to  salvation,  the  Scriptures  are  plain 
in  statement,  giving  simple  propositions  to  be  believed  and  clear  command- 
ments to  be  obeyed  by  unmistakable  acts ;  but  in  the  matters  not  essential 
to  salvation,  in  matters  of  mere  opinion,  we  allow  the  greatest  latitude, 
the  fullest  freedom. 

Q.  Well,  in  the  event  there  should  a  case  of  serious  difference  arise, 
I  still  insist  on  asking  you,  who  would  be  the  ultimate  judge  in  that 
matter? 

A.  Well,  as  we  have  never  had  any  such  case  (and  we  are  not  likely 
to  have),  any  answer  I  might  give  would  only  be  an  anticipation  of  it; 
but,  to  give  my  own  opinion,  I  presume,  as  we  have  the  congregational 
form  of  church  government,  that  it  would  fall  to  the  congregation  where 
the  difference  should  arise  to  handle  it,  either  by  its  own  membership  or 
by  other  brethren  whom  it  might  select  to  do  so. 

Q.  So  you  take  the  Scriptures  only  for  your  essential  doctrines? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  just  the  same  as  they  are  the  standard  in  matters  of  cor- 
rect conduct. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  such  thing  as  a  serious  difference  in  doctrine 
having  arisen  at  any  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  have  never  been  troubled  in  that  direction,  and,  as  I 
before  said,  we  are  not  likely  to  be.  We  take  the  Bible  as  our  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  let  it  do  its  own  preaching;  we  have  never  been  troubled, 
to  my  knowledge,  about  the  questions  of  doctrine,  so-called. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  in  your  Church  there  is  no  uniform 
opinion — that  one  may  have  his  own  opinion,  no  matter  what  it  is? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  counsel  is  hard  to  understand.  I  will  explain,  as  I 
have  done  before :  In  matters  essential  to  salvation  there  must  be  uni- 
formity of  opinion;  in  the  things  not  necessary  to  salvation  the  widest 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  121 

latitude  and  freedom  are -granted  ;  the  whole  thing  hinges  upon  the  relation 
these  things  sustain,  in  Bible  teaching,  to  salvation,  whether  they  are  neces- 
sary or  not  necessary  thereto. 

Q.  Does  your  Church  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  an  everlasting 
and  uncreated  God  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  that;  but,  if  it  is  so  expressed  in 
the  Scriptures,  our  Church  believes  it. 

Q.  W  ell,  what  is  your  idea  about  it  ? 

A.  Well,  my  opinion  is  there  is  no  such  scriptural  expression  in  the 
New  Testament,  nor  in  the  whole  Bible. 

Q.  You  are  talking  about  the  various  scriptural  expressions  in  relation 
to  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  If  it  is  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  Spirit  is  an 
everlasting  and  uncreated  God,  I  do  not  like  to  accept  it ;  but  if  there  is 
such  an  expression  in  the  Scriptures,  I  would  like  to  know  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  there  is  any  teaching  in  the  Script- 
ures to  this  effect  ? 

A.  Well,  I  will  ask  you  if  there  is  iy  place  in  the  Scriptures  where 
it  is  so  expressed  ?  It  may  have  escaped  my  memory. 

Q.  I  beg  you  not  to  catechise  me — you  are  the  one  to  answer 
questions. 

A.  I  take  it  to  be  my  privilege  to  ask  questions  for  information.  In 
speaking  of  that  matter,  I  could  only  give  my  opinion. 

Q.  Well,  according  to  your  opinion,  then,  is  there  any  such  teaching 
in  the  Scriptures  ? 

A.  I  think  not.  This  is  the  reason  I  did  not  answer,  and  asked  for  a 
reference.  , 

Q.  What  are  the  teachings  of  your  Church  in  relation  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity — in  regard  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  or 
Holy  Ghost? 

A.  It  is  believed  that  there  are  three  persons ;  that  the  Godhead  is  a 
trinity — that  is,  this  is  the  general  opinion,  I  think;  but  it  takes  no  higher 
rank  than  an  opinion. 

Q.  Well,  is  it  held  that  this  Godhead  is  the  same  in  name  with  the 
Father? 

A.  It  is  held  that  it  is  God ;  that  the  Godhead  is  made  up  of  the  trin- 
ity, the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Will  you  please  answer  my  question  ?  Does  your  Church  hold  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  or  Holy  Ghost  is  the  same  as  the  Father? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean — I  tried  to  answer  your  question. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  do  not  know  what  I  mean  by  the  term 
Father  as  used  iu  the  Scriptures? 


122  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  that  expression :  "  Is  this  God. 
head  the  same  in  name  with  the  Father?" 

Q.  I  do  not  want  you  to  say  anything  except  what  you  think  is  true ; 
but  I  want  you  to  say  that  much. 

A.  I  will  try  to  answer  your  question  again.  It  is  held  that  the  God- 
head  is  a  trinity ;  that  it  consists  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Q.  Exactly.     Now,  what  do  you  mean  by  the  Father? 

A.  It  is  believed  that  He  was  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  as  is  taught 
in  the  Bible:  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.'' 
It  is  believed  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was,  and  was  with  Him  in  the  creation;  that  He  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  and  thought  it  not  robbery  to  make  himself  equal  with  God ;  that  He 
took  upon  Him  the  nature  of  men,  and  dwelt  among  them;  and  that  He 
ascended  on  high,  and  is  set  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  in  the 
heavens. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  subject  to  the  Son,  or 
the  Father?  What  is  the  understanding  as  to  the  Godhead?  Is  it  under- 
stood that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  one? 

A.  It  is  understood  that  the  Son  was  sent  by  the  Father,  and  that  the 
Son  promised  to  send  the  Spirit. 

Q.  Well,  will  you  give  me  an  answer  to  the  question  whether  or  not 
it  is  thought  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  same  as,  and  only  another  name 
for,  the  Father? 

A.  The  counsel  repeats  his  question  which  I  have  before  attempted  to 
answer.  I  can  now  do  no  better  than  to  add  an  explanation  to  what  I 
have  already  said.  Man  is  a  wonderful  trinity,  being  composed  of  body, 
soul  and  spirit;  and  I  am  unable  to  explain  their  relations — what  the  spirit 
is  made  of  I  am  unable  to  say.  So  with  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  I  apprehend  this  ineffable  trinity  as  forming  one  Godhead, 
but  am  wholly  unable  to  comprehend  the  sublime  relations  that  exist  be- 
tween them,  or  to  describe  their  existence  or  substance.  Hence  I  prefer, 
as  does  the  Christian  Church  also,  to  leave  all  expressions  in  relation  to 
them  in  the  form  of  Scripture  statement. 

Q.  But  I  may  ask  you,  do  you  believe  the  Holy  Spirit  was  created? 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  is,  with  my  conception  of  things,  I  can  not  conceive 
how  it  could  be  a  part  of  the  Godhead  and  be  created — but  the  Scriptures 
do  not  say  anything  about  this. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  affirm  as  a  cardinal  doctrine  in  your  Church  or  belief 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  part  of  the  Everlasting  God? 

A.  It  is  never  put  in  that  way,  sir,  by  our  people. 

Q.  The  form  of  the  language  is  original,  is  it  ? 


Our  Orthodox*  n  the  Civil  Courts.  123 

<4.  We  never  put  it  in  that  way. 

O.  I  will  ask  you,  what  fa  you  mean  by  that? 

A.  \Vell,  when  we  s^J-  <^f  the  Holy  Spirit  and  its  relations,  we  never 
of  it  in  that  way-  for  the  reason  that  the  expression  is  never  found 
*n  *he  Scriptures. 

Q.  Well,  do  y>o  ^6  trinity  in  the  Scriptures? 

A.  No,  fir-  thlt  's  the  reason  1  explained  what  I  understood  the  term 
<•«  mean — yet,  af'.er  all,  the  idea  is  there:  "The  three  are  one." 

Q.  And  you  do  not  find  orthodox  there  either,  do  you? 

A.  No,  sir ;  and  that,  again,  is  the  reason  why  I  spoke  of  it  and  ex- 
yl-ined  what  I  understand  it  to  mean.  A  thing  which  I  can  comprehand 
I  may  be  permitted  to  explain ;  but  of  a  thing  which  is  to  me  incomprehen- 
sible, 1  ought  not  to  be  pressed  to  an  explanation. 

Q.  What  does  your  Church  believe  baptism  to  be  ? 

A.  It  believes  baptism  to  be  the  immersion  of  the  penitent  believer  in 
Vater  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Q,  Has  there  been  any  change  in  the  belief  of  your  Church  since  it 
was  started  by  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  ? 

A.  We  never  knew  that  our  Church  was  started  by  Mr.  Alexander 
Campbell — that  is  news  to  us. 

Q.  What  branch  of  the  Church  do  you  belong  to? 

A,  I  do  not  belong  to  any  branch  of  it ;  I  belong  to  the  Church  itself. 

Q.  There  are  two  branches  of  it,  are  there  not  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  The  Church  to  which  you  belong? 

A.  The  Church  to  which  I  belong? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  know  of  any  two  branches  of  it. 

Q.  When  was  it  organized? 

A.  I  think  about  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost. 

Q.  Is  that  your  recollection  of  it  ? 

A.  That  is  my  understanding  of  it;  of  course  my  recollection  of  it  is 
only  a  historical  recollection. 

Q.  It  has  been  in  existence  from  that  day  to  this — the  Christian 
Church? 

A,  Christ  said  to  Peter,  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church :  and 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  used 
those  keys  given  to  him  by  the  Saviour  and  opened  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
to  men ;  and  the  Saviour  having  assured  Peter  that  when  His  Church  was 
thus  established  and  His  Kingdom  thus  opened  the  gates  of  hell  should 


124.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tJie  Civil  Courts. 

not  prevail  against  it,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  gates  of  hell  have 
never  so  prevailed,  and  that  the  Church  of  Christ  has  had  an  existence 
from  that  day  to  this. 

Q.  What  relation  does  Alexander  Campbell  bear  to  this  Church? 

A.  The  Church  to  which  I  belong  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  He  was  a  member  of  it,  and  an  elder  in  it. 

Q.  Did  he  not  start  the  primitive  Church? 

A.  I  think  not,  sir;  he  lived  at  too  late  a  period  in  the  Christian  era 
for  that. 

Q.  The  first  Church,  you  say — the  first  Disciples'  Church — the  first 
Christian  Church,  was  organized  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  ? 

A.  That  is  the  understanding  I  have  of  the  matter. 

Q.  The  Disciples'  Church — do  you  assert  that  this  Church  to  which 
you  belong  was  then  organized? 

A.  That  is  my  understanding — the  Church  then  organized  was  made 
up  of  disciples,  such  as  I  try  to  be. 

Q.  Whereabouts  was  it? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  your  question.  . 

Q.  Whereabouts  was  the  original  Church  started  ? 

A.  In  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  I  think  about  the  temple,  by  the 
Apostle  Peter.  On  that  day  there  was  a  great  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  preachers  were  so  filled  with  it  that  they  spoke  as  it  gave  them  utter- 
ance. The  Apostle  Peter,  being  inspired,  with  the  rest  of  them,  preached 
the  same  grand  gospel  that  I  believe  and  try  to  preach,  "that  God  hath 
made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  you  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ;" 
and  three  thousand  of  the  hearers  that  day  believed,  repented  and  were 
baptized,  and  were  added  to  them.  Thus  the  Kingdom,  the  Church  of 
Christ,  began  its  onward  career ;  and  I  believe  the  gates  of  hell  have  never 
(and  never  will)  prevailed  against  it. 

Q.  Do  you  say  the  Apostle  Peter  was  the  starter  of  your  Church  ? 

A.  It  is  believed  he  was  the  first  preacher  to  declare  the  gospel  of 
the  grace  of  God  in  fact ;  that  he  did  this  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
that  he  did  it  under  the  full  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  the  results 
just  stated. 

Q.  When  in  the  religious  history  of  the  world  was  your  Church — the 
present  organization — first  known  ? 

A.  We  think  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

Q.  And  you  assert  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  understanding  of  it;  and  it  is  true,  if  I  do  not 
mistake  myself. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Do  you  know  this?  do  you  recollect  it? 

A.  No,  sir,  only  in  the  sense  in  which  I  recollect  other  historical  facts. 

Q.  Your  Church — the  Campbellite  Church,  the  Disciples'  Church,  the 
Christian  Church — was  organized  then  ?  Do  n't  you  know  that  the  present 
Church  was  not  then  organized? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Do  n't  know  anything  of  the  kind  ?  Will  you  name  a  preacher  of 
the  Campbellite,  Disciples',  or  Christian  Church  who  lived  in  the  last 
century  ?  And  will  you  tell  me  where  in  the  United  States  there  was  a 
congregation  known  by  the  name  of  Christian,  Disciple,  or  Campbellite — 
will  you  just  name  one  that  you  know  of?  Will  you  have  the  kindness  to 
tell  me  where  there  was  one  in  existence  a  hundred  years  ago  ? 

A.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  told  his  three  thousand  inquirers 
how  they  might  receive  the  remission  of  their  sins  and  thus  enter  into  the 
Church  of  Christ.  In  the  record  of  that  day's  events,  we  are  told  that  they 
all  heard  of  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ,  that  they 
were  commanded  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  His  name  for  the  remission 
of  their  sins,  and  that  they  all  obeyed  this  command  and  were  thus  added 
to  them,  thus  becoming  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and  from  that 
day  to  this,  all  who  do  the  same  things,  in  the  same  way,  under  the  same 
circumstances,  and  for  the  same  purpose,  I  believe,  are  members  of  the 
same  Church. 

Q.  Now,  of  what  church  are  you  talking? 

A.  The  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.  Then,  the  Presbyterians,  as  far  as  they  follow  the  example  of  the 
first  Christians,  are  members  of  your  Church  ? 

A.  Well,  I  do  very  frequently  speak  of  and  to  the  Presbyterians  as 
brethren ;  but  I  do  not  do  this  because  they  are  Presbyterians,  but  because 
I  recognize  in  them  an  earnest  desire  to  be  Christians — to  be  simply  a  Chris- 
tian, rising  above  being  a  Presbyterian. 

Q.  Now  you  may  state,  sir,  when  in  the  religious  history  of  the  world 
the  Church  known  as  the  Christian  Church  first  claimed  any  separate  Chris- 
tian organization. 

A.  Immediately  after  the  day  of  Pentecost  the  Church  of  Christ  was 
irreparably  separated  from  the  Jewish  institution  ;  but  the  name  Christian 
was  not  applied  to  them  until  a  church  had  been  organized  at  Antioch  in 
Syria.  "And  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  in  Antioch." 
(Acts  xii.  26.) 

Q.  You  say  that  the  Christian  Church  has  been  known  through  the 
whole  history  of  the  world  from  that  down  to  this  ?  your  Church  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  what  I  stated. 

Q.  Now,  you  understand,  sir — I  will  ask  you — I  ask  you  when  the 
first  religious  organization  of  disciples  or  Christians  came  to  be  known  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the-  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  have  already  answered  that;  on  .  Ad  after  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch. 

Q.  The  Church  to  which  you  belong  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  already  answered  tWt,  too. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  I  will  ask  you,  where  did  this  denomination — the  Chris- 
tian or  Campbellite  denomination — first  originate? 

A.  I  can  only  repeat  my  former  answer,  that  from  the  first  it  has  been 
known  by  that  name,  the  Church  of  Christ  or  Christian  Church — our 
organization. 

Q.  Do  you  continue  to  say  that  it  was  organized  fifty  days  after  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ  ? 

A.  That  is  just  what  I  continue  to  say.  We  believe  the  Church  of 
Christ  was  organized  as  I  have  already  so  often  stated.  In  respect  of  Mr. 
Campbell,  it  is  held  by  our  people  that  he  had  no  more  authority  to  organ- 
ize a  church  than  anybody  else;  that  he  was  under  as  much  obligation  to 
become  obedient  to  the  requirements  of  the  Church  already  organized  as 
any  one  else.  Instead  of  being  the  organizer  of  the  Church,  he  only 
called  attention  to  the  one  that  had  been  organized  under  the  inspired 
authority  of  the  apostles  of  Christ. 

Q.  Then  your  organization  had  been  dormant  until  Mr.  Campbell 
warmed  it  up  and  started  it  into  new  life — is  that  your  idea? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  have  no  such  idea. 

Q.  Mr.  Carpenter,  do  n't  you  preach — I  have  asked  when  this  de- 
nomination called  Christian,  or  Disciple,  or  Campbellite,  was  first 
organized  ? 

A.  And  so  you  have,  and  I  have  already  answered  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  denomination  of 
which  you  speak,  the  Church  to  which  you  say  you  belong — I  say  I  will 
ask  you,  was  not  that  Church  o.riginally  started  by  Alexander  Campbell 
and  his  father  ;  whether  or  not  he  did  not  start  it  in  1823?  Was  he  not 
the  founder  of  that  denomination? 

A.  I  do  not  so  understand  it. 

Q.  You  don't?  Do  you  understand  your  denomination  was  started 
as  a  reform  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  so  much  a  reformation,  though  this  term  is  some- 
times applied  to  it,  as  a  restoration.  The  work  of  Mr.  Campbell  and  his 
coadjutors  was  to  restore  primitive  Christianity  in  its  faith,  in  its  practice, 
and  in  its  organization. 

Q.  I  want  to  ask  you,  sir,  if  prior  to  this  time  (1823)  there  was  any 
tuch  institution  among  men  as  this  denomination  known  as  Christian  ? 

A.  Over  and  over  again  I  have  explained  that,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  started,  then,  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  It  was.  I  understand,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  began  at  Pentecost. 

Q.  Do  you  so  understand  it?     Do  you  so  assert  it? 

A.  That  is  my  belief. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  I  will  ask  you  this  question  again,  and  I  want  it  an- 
swered. When  was  this  particular  denomination  of  which  you  are  a  mem- 
ber started? 

A.  I  have  already  explained  that  question  again  and  again.  What 
further  answer  does  it  need  ? 

Q.   It  was  started  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  understanding  of  it. 

Q.  As  a  separate  organization,  the  Christian  denomination? 

A.   As  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.  Was  there  any  such  Church  during  the  Dark  Ages  ? 

A.   We  think  the  word  of  God  able 

Q.  Answer  the  question.  Was  there  any  such  Church  during  the 
Dark  Ages  ? 

A.  Some  questions  can  not  be  answered  by  "yes,  sir,"  and  "no,  sir." 

( To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Was  this  denomination  of  which  you  are  a  member,  this  particular 
Disciples',  or  Christian,  or  Campbelhte  Church,  in  existence  as  a  Christian 
organization  during  the  Dark  Ages? 

A.  My  knowledge  of  the  Dark  Ages  is  historical.  If  that  is  the  kind 
of  evidence  the  counsel  wants,  I  can  readily  answer  that  it  is  my  under- 
standing that  during  the  whole  period  of  what  is  called  the  Dark  Ages 
there  was  a  great  number  of  persons  who  were  members  of  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Q.  What  church  was  there,  what  Christian  Church  was  there  except 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church? 

A.  My  answer  must  again  be  historical.  There  were  the  Albigenses, 
the  Vaudois,  the  Waldenses,  and  that  long  line  of  heroic  representatives 
of  the  faith  of  Christ  that  made  the  valleys  of  Piedmont  and  elsewhere 
ring  with  the  praises  of  a  simple  worship.  Aye,  the  Lord  was  not  with- 
out a  people,  even  during  the  grossest  blindness  of  the  Dark  Ages,  and  he 
did  not  have  to  go  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  find  them. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Carpenter,  do  you  testify  to  this  jury  that  your  Church, 
the  real  denomination,  was  known  by  the  name  of  Christian  or  Disciples 
originally? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  testified  to  that  or  any  other  denomination  as 
being  called  Christian ;  the  idea  of  denomination  has  been  entirely  left  out 
of  my  view. 

Q.  You  have  not  ?  I  have  been  asking  you  for  a  half-hour  if  you 
could  tell  me  where  that  denomination  originated. 


128  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Ciiril  Courts. 

A.  I  have  answered  that  several  times,  but  because  the  counsel  is  used 
to  the  jargon  of  a  divided  Christendom  he  may  not  have  apprehended  my 
answers.  As  a  people,  we  discard  the  idea  of  denomination,  and  desire  to 
be  known,  and  really  to  be,  the  Church  of  Christ — the  Church  which  was 
established  by  His  authority  and  in  which  there  is  no  division.  If  we 
have  been  true  to  our  aim,  and  I  believe  we  have,  touching  questions  of 
origin,  start,  etc.,  I  can  give  no  other  answer  than  I  have  given — fifty  days 
after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  It  does  not  take  denominational  existence 
to  make  church  existence,  though  in  common  usage  the  term  church  may 
be  applied  to  them. 

Q.  That  is  your  answer  to  my  question  ? 

A.  If  I  can  throw  any  further  light  on  any  particular  point,  I  shall 
be  glad  to  do  so. 

Q.  What  is  the  name  of  this  denomination? 

A.  The  counsel  persists  in  the  use  of  the  term  denomination.  As  a 
people,  we  are  recognized  in  the  religious  world  as  the  Church  of  Christ, 
or  Christian  Church. 

Q.  When  was  this  particular  organization,  of  which  you  speak,  orig- 
inally known? 

A.  I  have  already  explained  that. 

Q.  Well,  explain  it  again. 

A.  In  the  Scriptures  we  have  the  Church  of  Christ  set  forth  and  its 
organization  described.  Of  this  Church  I  claim  to  be  a  member.  Now, 
it  is  not  claimed  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  made  up  of  any  partic- 
ular congregation  or  congregations  bound  together  by  any  human  ecclesi- 
astical law;  but  it  is  claimed,  as  so  often  stated,  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
was  organized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion  of 
Christ,  and  from  that  day  to  this  the  Lord  has  had  a  people  who  served 
Him  in  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  even  during  the  Dark  Ages.  This 
whole  body  of  the  Lord's  people  we  understand  to  be  the  Church  of  Christ ; 
the  separate  local  congregations  are  known  among  us,  as  they  were  known 
in  the  Scripture  times,  as  churches  of  Christ. 

Q.  Do  n't  you  preach — I  will  ask  you  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  organized? 

A.  I  can  not  testify  to  the  day,  sir. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  to  testify  to  the  day,  sir;  but  to  the  year.  When 
was  it? 

.-/.   I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  meant  to  testify  to  this  jury,  sir,  that  it  is  your  under- 
standing that  every  man  who  has  lived — every  follower  of  Jesus  Christ 
since  the  day  of  Pentecost  has  been  a  member  of  your  Church  ? 

A.   I  understand  that  every  man   who  has  lived  since  that  time,  being 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  129 

A  Christian,  has  been  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ — that  he  has  be- 
longed to  His  Church. 

Q.  Mr.  Carpenter,  do  you  testify  that  every  man  who  has  lived  since 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  being  a  Christian,  has  been  a  member  of  the  Christian 
Church? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  so  testify,  in  the  limited  sense  in  which  I  under- 
stand the  counsel  to  use  the  word  Christian. 

Q.   Well,  sir,  you  say  you  did  not  say  that  ? 

A.   I  say  I  have  not  said  it. 

Q.  That  there  have  not  been  members  of  your  particular  branch  of 
the  Church  ever  since  the  day  of  Pentecost  ? 

A.  I  have  made  some  statements  to  the  jury,  and  I  have  given  some 
reasons  why  I  think  there  have  been  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
ever  since  it  was  first  organized,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  but  that  is  quite 
a  different  thing  from  saying  that  they  belonged  to  our  particular  local 
congregations. 

Q.  You  say  that  you  do  n't  understand? 

A.  No,  sir;  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  stated  it  several  times. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  when  this  particular  branch  of  the  Christian  Church 
was  started. 

A.  The  counsel  still  clings  to  the  "branch"  of  the  Church.  Our  peo- 
ple do  not  recognize  any  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  We  realize 
that  there  are  many  in  the  so-called  denominations  whom  we  would  fain 
believe  are  Christians — are  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  we  are 
glad  to  recognize  them  as  such;  not  because  they  are  Methodists,  Presby- 
terians, Baptists,  etc.,  but  because  they  are  something  over  and  above  what 
these  sectarian  names  would  indicate ;  that  they  are  true  followers  of 
Christ.  But  if  the  counsel  desires  me  to  testify  at  what  particular  time 
these  particular  religious  congregations,  of  one  of  which  I  am  a  member, 
began  to  be  organized  as  congregations  and  thus  to  be  known  in  the  his- 
tory of  this  country,  I  can  do  so ;  and  I  would  say  that  the  first  one  thus 
organized  as  a  congregation  (not  as  the  Church  of  Christ  in  that  wide 
sense  in  which  I  have  been  using  that  application)  was  in  about  the  year 
1823. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  particular  Church  so  known  before  that  time  ? 
any  particular  denomination? 

A.  We  think  there  have  been  congregations,  churches,  members  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  during  all  these  ages,  else  the  declaration  of  Christ 
is  not  true,  "The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  But  that  is 
not  equivalent  to  saying  that  denominations  have  so  existed,  or  that 
denominations,  as  such,  are  any  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.  Was  there  ever  any  such  Church  until  it  was  started  by  Alexander 
Campbell  ? 


i jo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlif  Civil  Courts, 

A.  I  never  knew  that  Alexander  Campbell  started  a  church. 

Q,  Who,  then,  started  a  church  in  1823? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Who,  then,  called  attention  to  those  congregations,  of  which  you 
spoke,  in  1823? 

A.  Well,  when  those  congregations  were  separately  organized  (only  as 
local  organizations,  however ),  among  the  people  who  were  members  of 
them  was  Alexander  Campbell,  Thomas  Campbell,  Walter  Scott,  et  a/.,  all 
of  whom  plead  for  a  restoration  of  the  primitive  Church  of  Christ  as  it 
was  established  at  Pentecost  and  maintained  during  the  apostolic  times. 

Q.  The  persons  forming  those  congregations  were  seceding  members 
from  the  Baptist  Church,  were  they  not? 

A.  I  have  no  such  understanding. 

Q.  They  were  apostates  from  the  Baptist  Church,  were  they  not? 

A.  That  can  't  be  said,  unless  it  can  be  said  that  the  three  thousand 
who  entered  the  Church  of  Christ  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  apostates 
from  the  Jewish  institution  ;  unless  it  can  be  said  that  leaving  the  wrong 
and  going  into  the  right  is  an  apostasy. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  matter — who  composed  those 
congregations  in  1823? 

A.  I  have  some  historical  knowledge  upon  the  subject. 

Q.  Was  not  Alexander  Campbell — was  he  not  the  founder  of  the 
Church  in  the  same  sense  that  Wesley  was  the  founder  of  the  Methodist 

Church  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  in  what  sense  you  mean  that  Wesley  was  the  founder 

of  the  Methodist  Church. 

Q.  Do  you  assert  that  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  I  assert  that  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Oh !  you  are  too  wise. 

A.  That  is  just  what  I  am  trying  to  come  at. 

Q.  You  say  that  Alexander  Campbell  originally  was  not  the  founder  of 
the  Campbellite,  or  Christian,  or  Disciples'  Church,  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  John  Wesley  was  the  founder  of  the  Methodist  Church?  What  do 
you  say? 

A.  I  can  explain  it,  if  I  understand  you. 

Q.  Well,  explain  it  in  whatever  sense  you  please. 

A.  John  Wesley  was  the  founder  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  that  he 
was  the  originator  of  the  movement,  which  was  an  entirely  new  one  ;  in  that 
in  its  first  stages  he  dictated  its  teachings  and  policy,  which  teachings  and 
policy  finally  crystallized  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church;  and  in 
that  this  Discipline  forms  the  constitution  of  the  Church — the  standard  by 
by  which  all  heresies  and  disorders  in  it  are  tried.  Alexander  Campbell 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  ijr 

was  not  the  founder  of  the  Church  of  Christ;  because  the  congregations  he 
established  were  only  local  and  under  a  standard  already  erected  (the 
Bible),  upon  a  constitution  already  adopted  (Christ  and  His  teachings, 
through  himself  and  His  apostles),  and  in  a  movement  already  inaugurated 
(at  Pentecost).  One  who  helps  to  carry  on  a  movement  already  begun, 
under  limitations  already  established,  and  under  a  standard  already  pro- 
vided, can  not  be  said  to  be  the  originator  of  the  movement.  That  is 
Alexander  Campbell. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  the  first  church  organization  was  known  as 
Christian,  if  there  were  any  in  existence  before  the  time  Alexander  Camp- 
bell organized  his  first  congregations?  If  so,  you  may  state  where  one 
existed. 

A.  Do  you  mean  historical  knowledge  ?  Of  course  I  have  no  means 
of  knowing  things  before  I  was  born,  except  historically. 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  that  matter,  then  ? 

A.  I  have  historical  knowledge,  I  say ;  knowledge  I  have  obtained 
from  what  I  have  read. 

Q.  Now,  you  testified  that  the  Church  was  organized  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Why  can  't  you  answer  my  question  as  to  the  existence  of  con- 
gregations before  the  time  of  Alexander  Campbell  ? 

A.  I  can  testify  to  that  just  in  the  same  way  that  I  did  to  the  other. 

Q.  In  what  way  can  you  testify  to  that,  then? 

A.  I  have  historical  knowledge  upon  that  point,  and  can  testify  that 
there  were  congregations,  such  as  I  have  described,  before  the  time  of 
Alexander  Campbell. 

Q.  Well,  where  were  they? 

A.  At  Antioch  in  Syria,  and  at  Corinth  in  Greece,  such  congregations 
existed. 

Q.  Was  there  more  than  one  branch  of  the  Church  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  no  branch  at  all. 

Q.  What  did  you  say — that  there  was  more  than  one  branch  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  there  is  no  branch  of  the  Church  to  which  you 
belong.  I  will  ask  you  this  question,  Do  you  say  to  the  jury  that  there 
was  a  separate  organization  of  the  Church — of  the  Christian  Church  to 
which  you  belong — existing  in  this  country  prior  to  the  organization  of 
congregations  by  Alexander  Campbell  ? 

A.  That  depends  upon  what  you  call  the  Christian  Church.  If  you 
refer  to  an  ecclesiastical  body,  composed  of  various  congregations,  bound 
together  by  an  organization  having  episcopal,  presbyterial,  or  other  funo 
tions,  and  ruled  by  officers  other  than  the  officers  of  the  local  congrega- 
tion, then  I  must  say  there  was  not  before  that  time,  and  that  there  has 


ij2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

not  been  since.  In  that  sense,  there  is  not  now,  nor  has  there  ever  been, 
a  Christian  Church,  the  Church  of  Christ,  in  this  country. 

Q.  Well,  then,  I  will  ask  you  to  state  to  the  jury  whether  or  not  this 
people,  of  whom  we  have  been  speaking,  ever  were  in  the  relation  of  a 
Christian  Church ;  do  you  understand  that  to  be  a  fact  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  mean? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  I  said. 

Q,  Now,  then,  I  repeat  the  question,  Do  you  know  of  any  separate 
body  or  organization,  in  the  relation  of  a  Christian  Church,  that  existed 
before  the  time  of  Alexander  Campbell  ? 

A.  Historically  I  do,  as  I  have  already  explained. 

Q.  What  one?  will  you  mention  it? 

A.  The  church  at  Jerusalem,  the  church  at  Antioch,  the  church  at 
Thessalonica,  etc.  Now,  I  understand  that  these  churches  belonged  to  the 
same  great  body  that  the  church  to  which  Alexander  Campbell  belonged 
did ;  for  the  same  doctrine  was  believed 

Q.  I  want  to  ask 

A.  Will  you  wait  till  I  get  through  my  answer  ?  The  same  doctrine 
was  believed,  the  churches  are  organized  alike — with  the  same  officials  per- 
forming like  duties,  in  the  churches  the  same  services  were  performed,  and 
the  same  kind  of  work  was  being  accomplished.  The  churches  were  built 
upon  the  same  foundation  (apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  be- 
ing the  chief  corner-stone),  they  rallied  under  the  same  holy  standard  (the 
Word  of  God),  and  they  acknowledged  the  same  divine  Head  (the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ).  With  all  these  essential  elements  coinciding,  we  believe 
that  these  churches  are  parts  of  the  same  great  body  as  that  to  which  the 
churches  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Thessalonica,  etc.,  belonged;  and,  if  so, 
then  the  body  to  which  Alexander  Campbell  belonged  existed  long  cen- 
turies before  his  time,  and  has  the  divine  sanction  of  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church. 

Q.  Now,  then,  I  will  repeat  my  question,  for  I  want  it  answered :  Do 
you  say,  sir,  that  there  was  a  church  of  the  same  denomination  to  which 
you  belong,  a  Christian  Church,  as  a  separate  organization,  teaching  and 
preaching  and  professing  the  same  doctrines  and  belief  that  you  preach 
and  profess,  before  Alexander  Campbell  organized  the  congregations  he 
did? 

A.  I  have  repeatedly  explained  that  we  think  there  has  been,  sir ;  we 
think  that  the  churches  organized  under  the  apostles'  teaching,  whether  in 
apostolic  or  subsequent  times,  are  the  same. 

Q.  What  was  their  name  before  Campbell's  time? 

A.  God's  people  have  been  called  Christians  ever  since  the  disciples 
were  called  Christians  at  Antioch. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Do  you  understand  that,  from  the  landing  of  the 
Pilgrims  at  Plymouth  Rock  down  to  the  time  that  Mr.  Campbell  organ- 
ized his  first  congregation,  a  Church  was  known  as  a  Christian  Church — 
indeed,  at  any  time  since  the  primitive  Church,  since  the  apostles? 

A.  I  have  already  explained  that  the  Church,  as  we  understand  it,  is 
made  up  of  all  God's  people  wh~6  are  truly  united  to  Christ ;  that  is,  the 
local  congregations  (and  that  is  the  only  divine  organization  known  to  us) 
do  not  necessarily  constitute  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  that  the  Church 
is  composed  of  all  God's  people  who  are  truly  in  Christ,  whether  it  per- 
tains  to  present  or  primitive  times,  or  to  this  or  other  lands.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  as  an  organization,  can  no  more  rightfully  claim  to  be 
the  Church  of  Christ,  because  it  teaches  and  practices  some  of  the  pre- 
cepts and  injunctions  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  than  it  can  be  claimed  a 
locomotive  is  a  wagon  because  it  has  wheels ;  and  the  same  may  as  truly 
be  said  of  all  other  organizations  claiming  to  be  the  Church  of  Christ 
which  have  teachings,  practices,  and  elements  of  organization  which  are 
different  from  the  primitive  Church  as  organized  under  the  direction  of 
Christ  and  His  apostles.  Recognizing  this  truth,  the  people  with  whom  I 
am  identified,  and  whose  orthodoxy  is  here  called  in  question,  seek  to 
pattern  their  congregations  after  the  divine  model,  and  to  teach  the  same 
doctrine  and  to  practice  the  same  precepts  that  were  taught  and  practiced 
by  the  apostolic  Church;  and  they  believe  that  in  so  doing  they  are  labor- 
ing to  restore  the  Church  of  Christ  to  its  primitive  purity  and  conquering 
power. 

Q.  You  say,  now,  referring  to  the  organization  of  these  churches — 
when  were  these  churches,  or  congregations,  first  known  in  the  religious 
history  of  this  country? 

A.  I  have  aiready  explained  that  my  historical  knowledge  of  the  fact 
is  that  they  became  known  in  about  the  year  1823. 

Q.  Who  originated   this  movement? 

A.  If  your  question  refers  to  the  first  movement  to  restore  primitive 
Christianity  in  this  country,  then  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  co- 
laborers. 

Q.  Was  not  Alexander  Campbell  the  great  promoter  of  it? 

A.   I  certainly  think  that  Alexander  Campbell  was  a  great  teacher. 

Q.   But  was  not  he  the  great  promoter  of  it  ? 

A.  I  think  while 

Q.  But,  now,  was  not  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  a  prominent  and  dis- 
tinguished man  in  your  Church? 

A.  No  more  so  than  many  others,  and  only  so  because  of  hi«  eminent 
abilities  as  a  teacher  and  defender  of  the  Bible  doctrine,  both  by  word  of 
mouth  and  by  his  pen. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Was  he  the  author  of  the  Christian  System  ? 

A.  If  your  question  refers  to  the  great  plan  of  salvation  by  which  men 
are  to  be  saved,  I  must  say  no,  for  Jesus  ''became  to  all  who  obey  him  the 
author  of  eternal  salvation;"  but  if  it  refers  to  a  book,  I  can  say  that  he 
was  the  author  of  quite  a  number  of  volumes. 

Q.  Was  he  the  author  of  The  Christian  System  ? 

A.  My  understanding  is  that  he  was  the  author  of  a  book  called  The 
Christian  System. 

Q.  This  book  unfolds  the  doctrine  or  belief  of  your  Church. 

A.  This  book  unfolds  Mr.  Campbell's  conception  of  the  Bible  teach- 
ing on  the  great  question  of  man's  salvation ;  and  I  may  say  that  these 
views  are  largely  held  by  the  membership  of  the  Church,  but  not  on  ac- 
count of  any  ecclesiastical  action  of  the  Church. 

Q.  Well,  sir— well,  sir,  do  you— do  you  say  that— if  I  recollect  you, 
you  said  that  regeneration  is  essential  to  salvation. 

A.  I  did,  sir;  at  any  rate,  if  I  did  not  I  say  so  now. 

Q.  That  a  man  must  be  regenerated  ?  Do  you  believe  when  a  man  it 
pardoned  he  is  saved? 

A.  I  do,  sir — from  his  past  sins. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  he  is  saved  through  the  blood  of  Christ  alone? 

A.  In  one  sense,  I  do,  sir;  it  is  "  the  blood  of  Christ  that  cleanses 
from  all  sin." 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  a  man  can  inherit  salvation  except  through 
the  blood  of  Christ  alone  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  your  question.  The  gospel  re- 
quires that  one  believes  in  order  to  be  saved. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  the  blood  of  Christ  alone  saves  men  ? 

A.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  that  which  cleanses  *  man  from  all  sin. 

Q.  You  believe  that  the  blood  of  the  Saviour  saves  a  man  from  all  sin, 
do  you? 

A.  We  do ;  most  emphetically  we  do,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  this,  then  ?  I  will  read  from  The  Christian  System, 
by  Alexander  Campbell:  "Reader,  reflect — what  a  jargon,  what  a  con- 
fusion, have  the  mystic  doctors  made  of  this  metaphorical  expression,  and 
of  this  topic  of  regeneration.  To  call  the  receiving  of  any  spirit  or  influ- 
ence, or  energy,  or  any  operation  upon  the  heart  of  man,  regeneration,  is 
an  abuse  of  all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  from  the  diction  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  calls  nothing  personal  regeneration  except  the  act  of  immersion." 
( Christian  System,  p.  203.)  Do  you  hold  that  ? 

A.  I  think  that  Alexander  Campbell  is  right  in  that  statement,  if  he 
is  understood  as  he  meant  to  be.  If  you  desire  it,  I  can  explain  what  I 
understand  him  to  have  meant. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts, 

Q.  Does  your  Church  believe  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved  except  he 
be  "boiii  jf  water,  be  resurrected  from  the  water  ? 

A.  Jt  believes  that  "except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

Q.  You  chink  it  is  necessary  to  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  ia 
order  to  be  saved >  You  think  a  man  must  be  born  through  the  water — is 
that  the  doctrine  you  teach  ? 

A.  The  Church  beiieves  just  what  the  Saviour  said  to  Nicodemus: 
"  Except  that  a  man  be  ooru  oi  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God." 

Q.  Will  you  answer  the  tjdtation  ?  Do  you  believe  it  is  not  sufficient, 
or  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved,  if  ne  be  born  only  of  the  Spirit?  Do  you 
contend  that  he  must  be  born  of  the  water  ? 

A.  It  is  believed  that  a  man  must  be  born  again;  and  that  baptism  is 
the  consummating  act  in  this  new  birth,  if  a  child  can  be  born  without 
the  consummating  act  of  birth,  then  m*/  a  man  be  born  anew  without 
baptism.  At  any  rate,  the  Saviour  puts  u  m  strong  light:  "Jesus,  an- 
swered, verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  <*  *fl&n  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  D.">rn  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. 
Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born  a^tin."  (John  iii.  5-7.) 

Q.  Does  your  Church  hold  that  a  person  can  not  be  regenerated,  or 
saved,  except  he  be  immersed  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  it  does  not ;  but  I  think  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  ex- 
plain in  order  that  this  be  understood.  The  conception  of  regeneration 
which  is  held  by  the  denominations  generally  is  not  the  conception  of  re- 
generation which  Mr.  Campbell  held  and  advocated,  tte  taught  that  to 
be  regenerated,  or  born  again,  a  man  must  be  all  that  the  denominations 
call  regenerated — changed  of  mind,  changed  of  will,  changed  of  heart — 
and  in  addition  to  that,  as  the  Saviour  taught,  he  must  be  born  of  water, 
which  is  the  consummating  act  in  the  process  of  regeneration,  of  being 
born  again,  as  he  taught. 

Q.  Now  you  may  listen  to  what  I  read 

A.  Shall  I  remain  in  my  seat? 

Q.  "Some  curious  criticisms  have  been  offered,  to  escape  the  force  of 
the  plain  declaration  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles  upon  this  subject.  Some 
say  that  the  words  'Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  Spirit,'  are  not  to 
be  understood  literally.  Surely,  then,  if  to  be  born  of  water  does  not 
mean  to  be  born  of  water,  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  must  mean  something 
else  than  to  be  born  of  the  Spiiit.  This  is  so  fanatical  and  extravagant  as 
to  need  no  other  exposure.  He  who  can  not  see  the  propriety  of  calling 
immersion  a  being  born  again  can  see  no  propriety  in  any  metaphor  in 


fj6  Onr  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

common  use.  A  resurrection  is  a  new  birth.  Jesus  is  said  to  be 
born  from  the  dead,  because  the  first  who  rose  from  the  dead  to  die  no 
more.  And,  surely,  there  is  no  abuse  of  speech,  but  the  greatest  propriety, 
in  saying  that  he  who  has  died  to  sin,  and  been  buried  in  water,  when  raised 
up  again  out  of  that  element,  is  born  again  or  regenerated.  If  Jesus  was 
born  again  when  he  came  out  of  a  sepulcher,  surely  he  is  born  again  who 
is  raised  up  out  of  a  grave  of  water."  ( Christian  System,  pp.  202-j.) 
Now,  sir,  do  you  say  that  Alexander  Campbell  did  not  teach  that  as  funda- 
mental, that  personal  regeneration  is  being  born  again,  that  regeneration 
and  being  born  again  are  the  same  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  only  in  the  sense  that  the  name  of  the  last  act  in  a  process 
is  very  frequently — nearly  always — given  to  the  whole  process.  In  the 
extract  you  have  read,  Mr.  Campbell  predicates  being  born  again  upon  one 
having  died  to  sin,  a  thing  that  antedates  the  being  buried  in  the  water 
and  the  birth  from  it.  He  taught  that  regeneration,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  term,  is  a  process  of  which  the  being  born  again  is  the  last  act.  Hear 
him  on  this  point :  "  Moreover,  we  think  it  will  be  granted,  that,  what- 
ever may  be  the  scriptural  acceptation  of  the  word  generation,  regeneration 
is  only  a  repetition  of  the  act  or  process.  After  a  close  examination  of 
the  passages  in  which  generation  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  and  apostles,  we  find  it  used  only  in  two  acceptations — as  descrip- 
tive of  the  whole  process  of  creation  and  of  the  thing  created.  A  race  of 
men,  or  a  particular  class  of  men,  is  called  a  generation  ;  but  this  is  its  figur- 
aMve  rather  than  its  literal  meaning.  Its  literal  meaning  is  the  formation 
or  creation  of  anything.  Thus  it  is  first  used  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Moses  calls  the  creation,  or  whole  process  of  formation  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  ' The  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  (Genesis  ii.  4.) 
The  account  of  the  formation  of  Adam  and  Eve,  and  also  the  account  of 
the  creations  of  Adam  and  Eve,  are,  by  the  same  writer,  called  'The  book 
or  record  of  ^^.generations  of  Adam.'  (Genesis  v.  I.)  This  is  the  literal 
import  of  the  word ;  consequently,  regeneration  literally  indicates  the  whole 
process  of  renovating  or  new-creating  man.  This  process  may  consist  of 
numerous  distinct  acts;  but  it  is  in  accordance  with  general  usage  to  give 
to  the  beginning  or  consummating  act  the  name  of  the  whole  process.  For 
the  most  part,  however,  the  name  of  the  whole  process  is  given  to  the  con- 
summating act,  because  the  process  is  always  supposed  to  be  incomplete 

until  that  act  is  performed In  the  same  sense  it  is,  that  most 

Christians  call  regeneration  the  NEW  BIRTH ;  though  being  born  is  only  the 
last  act  in  natural  generation,  and  the  last  act  in  regeneration."  (  Tht 
Christian  System,  pp.  262-3.) 

Q.  I  will  read  further: 

A.  Read  a  little  before  where  you  last  read,  p'ease. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  "The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  begetter,  the  gospel  is  the 
seed  ;  and,  being  thus  begotten  and  quickened,  we  are  born  of  the  water. 
A  child  is  alive  before  it  is  born,  and  the  act  of  being  born  only  changes 
its  state,  not  its  life.  Just  so  is  the  metaphorical  birth.  Persons  are  be- 
gotten by  the  Spirit  of  God,  impregnated  by  the  Word,  and  born  of  the 
water."  (  The  Christian  System,  p.  201.) 

A.  That  is  what  I  believe. 

Q.  Raised  up  out  of  the  element  of  water  is  born  again — born  of  the 
Spirit  and  raised  up  out  of  the  grave  of  water  ? 

A.  What  Mr.  Campbell  said  is  what  I  believe,  exactly.  As  to  the 
figure  involved  in  the  grave  of  water,  it  is  taught  that  men  must  die  to 
sin,  that  the  death  must  be  before  the  burial  in  baptism. 

Q.  And  that  personal  regeneration  consists  in  the  act  of  immersion  ? 

A.  It  is  believed,  as  has  been  explained,  and  as  Mr.  Campbell  has 
taught,  when  presented  under  the  metaphor  of  a  new  birth  it  consists  of 
the  begetting  of  the  Spirit,  the  impregnation  of  the  Word,  and  the  birth 
of  water;  but  when  presented  under  the  metaphor  of  life  from  the  dead, 
it  consists  of  death  to  sin,  as  Christ  died,  a  burial  as  He  was  buried,  and 
a  resurrection  as  He  was  raised  from  the  dead  ;  both  of  these  metaphors 
describe  the  same  process,  and  find  their  completing  act  in  the  same  thing — 
baptism. 

Q.  Mr.  Carpenter,  tell  us  whether  a  man's  sins  are  washed  away — 
whether  or  not  immersion  is  the  act  of  conversion  or  regeneration  ? 

A.  As  to  the  first  part  of  the  question,  the  Scriptures  represent  Anan- 
ias as  saying  to  Saul:  "And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  (Acts 
xxii.  16.)  As  to  the  second  part  of  the  question,  immersion  has  nothing 
to  do  whatever  with  conversion  unless  it  be  preceded  by  a  living  faith  and 
a  genuine  turning  away  from  all  sin — a  turning  toward  a  reformation  of 
life — and  an  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the  only  Saviour ;  having  these  ante- 
cedents, and  being  a  faith-act,  it  brings  the  sinner  into  the  enjoyment  of 
the  blessings  of  Christ. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  it  is  a  part  of  the  teachings  of  your 
Church  that  a  person  is  not  converted  to  God  until  he  is  immersed  ? 

A.  In  the  sense  that  immersion  is  the  consummating  act  in  the  pro- 
cess of  conversion — that  is,  in  the  whole  process  of  bringing  a  condemned 
sinner  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  and  translating  him  into  the  kingdom  of 
God's  dear  Son,  immersion  is  the  last  act  which  is  done  to  bring  him  into 
the  Church  of  Christ — it  is  taught  that  a  man  must  be  immersed. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  way  for  a  man  to  be  converted  than  that  way? 

A.  Scholastic  and  opinionative  theology  points  out  a  good  many  ways: 
by  the  whisperings  of  a  small,  still  voice,  by  a  long  series  of  peculiar  ex- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

periences,  by  the  miraculous  in-working  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  etc.,  etc.  But 
any  way  that  does  not  produce  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of 
God,  a  thorough  reformation  of  life,  and  a  submission  to  the  command  of 
the  Divine  Christ  in  immersion,  if  baptism  be  by  immersion- — of  which  I 
have  no  doubt — fails  to  conform  to  the  Scriptural  teaching  upon  this  subject. 

Q.  But  is  there  not  some  other  way  for  a  man  to  be  Scripturally  con- 
verted except  by  immersion? 

A.  Mr.  Campbell  has  taught,  and  the  Christian  Church  urges,  the  im- 
portance of  the  divinely  appointed  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  it  is  believed 
that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism.  Now,  in  the  divine  plan  of  salvation, 
baptism  has  its  place,  to  tear  it  from  which  is  sacrilegious;  and  the  Chris- 
tian Church  believes  it  is  the  divine  ordinance  which  stands  between  the 
world  and  the  Church,  and,  therefore,  that  the  penitent  believer,  in  order 
to  come  into  the  Church,  must  come  through  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
This  is  common  ground  with  all  orders  of  Christian  religionists,  with  per- 
haps the  Quakers  alone  as  an  exception — no  members  are  ever  admitted 
into  any  church  unless  they  have  been  what  they  call  baptized.  In  that 
sense  of  the  word  it  is  the  means  of  being  born  into  the  Church  of  Christ, 
the  family  of  God. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  your  Church  does  not  teach  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  in  coming  to  God,  baptism  is  for  the 
remission  of  sins? 

A.  It  U  taught  that  the  remission  of  sins  is  to  be  obtained  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  that  the  penitent  believer  comes  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by 
being  buried  with  Him  in  baptism :  "  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death."  (Romans 

*i.  3-) 

Q.  Suppose  the  penitent  believer  is  not  immersed? 

A.  Suppose  that  he  is  not  immersed  ?  Then  we  leave  him  entirely 
with  God — God  has  not  revealed  what  He  would  do  with  that  man. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  from  what  you  know  of  your  Church,  whether  or 
not  it  is  its  belief  that  unless  a  man  is  immersed  he  can  not  be  saved? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  Church  has  no  such  belief. 

Q.  Of  course  the  thief  on  the  cross  could  not  have  been  baptized. 

A.  Presumably  not;  but  he  died  before  there  was  any  such  thing  as 
Christian  baptism,  such  as  we  have  been  talking  about ;  besides,  we  believe 
there  will  be  more  persons  in  heaven  who  were  not  baptized  than  there 
will  be  who  were. 

Q.  Is  that  your  teaching? 

A.  That  is  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  Then  it  is  the  belief  of  your  Church  that  baptism  is  not  at  all 
necessary  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  is  not  the  belief  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  I  understand  you,  then,  that  if  a  man  be  not  immersed  he  will  be 
lost  if  he  could  have  been  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  say  so.  I  believe  there  will  be  persons  in 
heaven  who  were  not  immersed ;  but  the  sane,  responsible,  sinful  man  can 
not  fill  all  the  requirements  of  the  gospel  without  being  immersed,  as  I 
believe,  and  thus  come  within  the  range  of  the  gospel  promises.  We 
teach  men  not  to  rely  upon  anything  for  salvation  until  they  have  met 
all  the  gospel  requirements;  then  we  teach  them  to  implicitly  trust  the 
promises  of  God  that  He  will  save  them. 

Q.  But  you  teach  them  that  there  is  no  other  form  of  baptism  except 
by  immersion  ? 

A.  We  believe  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism  inculcated  in  the 
Christian  Scriptures,  and  that  this  command  of  the  divine  Saviour  can  not 
be  obeyed  otherwise ;  but  we  do  not  take  upon  ourselves  the  presumption 
to  say  what  God  must  and  shall  do  in  cases  where  it  has  not  thus  been 
obeyed.  The  teaching  of  John  Wesley  is  presumably  true  upon  this  point: 
•'But  the  benefit  of  this  [the  remedy  which  had  been  found  by  the  second 
Adam  for  the  removal  of  original  sin]  is  to  be  received  through  the  means 
which  he  hath  appointed ;  through  baptism  in  particular,  which  is  the  or- 
dinary means  he  hath  appointed  for  that  purpose;  and  to  -which  God  hath 
tied  us,  though  he  may  not  have  tied  himself," — [  Italics  mine. — ED.]  ( Wesley's 
Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  251,  edition  1850,  New  York.)  As  I  have  said  before, 
touching  Mr.  Campbell's  teaching  on  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  he 
must  be  allowed  his  own  interpretation  of  it. 

Q.  What  book  is  that  you  have  ? 

A.  It  is  The  Christian  System.     I  also  have  Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate. 

Q.  What  is  the  page  ? 

A.  Page  58. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  page  ? 

A.  In  paragraph  numbered  VI.,  Mr.  Campbell  has  given  his  own  expla- 
nation of  the  relation  which  baptism,  in  the  divine  plan  of  salvation,  sus- 
tains to  the  blood  of  Christ  and  remission  of  sins;  and,  as  every  man  has 
the  right  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  his  own  explanation,  I  desire 
that  this  go  to  the  jury:  "Baptism  is,  then,  designed  to  introduce  the 
subjects  of  it  into  participation  of  the  blessings  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ;  who  'died  for  our  sins,'  and  'rose  again  for  our  justification.' 
But  it  has  no  abstract  efficacy.  Without  previous  faith  in  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  deep  and  unfeigned  repentance  before  God,  neither  immersion 
in  water,  nor  any  other  action,  can  secure  to  us  the  blessings  of  peace  and 
pardon.  It  can  merit  nothing.  Still  to  the  believing  penitent  it  is  the 
means  of  receiving  formal,  distinct,  and  specific  absolution,  or  release  from 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  tht  Civil  Courts. 

guilt.  Therefore,  none  but  those  who  have  first  believed  the  testimony  of 
God  and  have  repented  of  their  sins,  and  who  have  been  intelligently  im- 
mersed into  his  death,  have  the  full  and  explicit  testimony  of  God,  assur- 
ing them  of  pardon.  To  such  only  as  are  truly  penitent,  dare  we  say, 
'Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  your  sins,  calling  upon  the  name 
of  the  Lord,'  and  to  such  only  can  we  say  with  assurance,  'You  are 
washed,  you  are  justified,  you  are  sanctified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'  "  (  Christian  System, p.  jS.) 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir:  I  understand  Mr.  Campbell  to  be  speaking 
about  personal  sins,  and  not  original  sin,  in  this  abstract.  Am  I  right  about 
that? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  am  glad  you  are. 

Q.  And,  as  he  taught,  baptism  does  not  save  the  sinner  only  from  his 
past  personal  sins — is  this  the  distinction  you  make  ?  Is  this  the  teaching 
of  your  Church  ? 

A.  As  I  understand  it,  that  is  the  teaching  both  of  Mr.  Campbell  and 
the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  That  the  blood  of  Christ  is  a  propitiation  for  sin  ;  that  men  are  to 
be  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  this  baptism  is  to  be  in  like- 
ness to  his  burial  and  resurrection  ? 

A.  That  is  what  we  teach. 

Q.  That  baptism  is  the  immersion  of  a  believer  into  Christ? 

A.  That  is  what  we  teach,  as  I  have  explained. 

Q.  That  baptism  has  no  secret  efficacy  ? 

A.   We  teach  that  it  has  no  efficacy  of  itself. 

Q.  Are  we  to  understand  by  that  that  it  has  no  efficacy  at  all  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  we  understand  it  to  have  the  same  efficacy  attached  to  it 
in  its  legal  obedience  as  the  marriage  ceremony  has  in  marriage,  and  the 
oath  of  allegiance  has  in  the  naturalization  of  a  foreigner. 

Q.  Exactly.  In  other  words,  a  man  can  not  be  legally  married  unless 
there  be  a  celebration  of  the  marriage  ceremony?  Then,  as  a  man  can  not 
be  legally  married  without  the  celebration  of  the  marriage  ceremony,  so 
one  can  not  become  a  Christian  without  the  observance  of  baptism? 

A.   What  I  have  said  does  not  warrant  that  conclusion. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  baptism  sustains  the  same  relation  to 
the  Christian  that  the  celebration  of  the  marriage  ceremony  does  to  the 
married  state? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  stated  something  like  that. 

Q.  Now,  as  a  man  can  not  be  legally  married  unless  he  goes  through 
the  process  of  the  marriage  ceremony,  so  one  can  not  be  saved  unless  he 
be  immersed  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  have  already  stated  that  to  the  jury  several  times.     The 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  14.1 

counsel's  comparisons  are  of  unlike  things.  Let  me  make  a  statement  oi 
the  thing  involved  in  these  comparisons :  as  the  wife  can  not  claim  any 
right  to  the  possessions  of  her  husband  without  the  solemnization  of  the 
marriage  ceremony,  and  as  the  foreigner  can  not  claim  the  protection  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  without  the  naturalization  effected  by 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  so  the  condemned  sinner  can  not  lay  any  claim  to 
the  blessings  and  privileges  of  the  Church  of  Christ  without  obeying  the 
transitional  command  of  baptism,  which  is  the  consummating  act  that  brings 
him  into  the  body  of  Christ. 

Q.  Well,  now,  I  will  read  again:  "They  were  informed  that,  though 
they  now  believed  and  repented,  they  were  not  pardoned,  but  must  'reform 
and  be  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins.'1  Immersion  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  was  the  command  addressed  to  these  believers,  to  these  penitents,  in 
answer  to  the  most  earnest  question."  (Christian  System,  p.  /9J.) 

A.  That  expresses  the  belief  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Q.  You  believe  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  we  believe  that. 

Q.  The  only  way  the  gospel  specifies  for  men  to  be  saved  is  by  being 
plunged  or  immersed  in  the  water? 

A.  That  is  not  what  Alexander  Campbell  says. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  read  what  he  says:  "This  act  of  faith  was  pre- 
sented as  that  act  by  which  a  change  in  their  state  could  be  effected ;  or, 
in  other  words,  by  which  alone  they  could  be  pardoned,  They  'who 
gladly  received  this  word  were  that  day  immersed ;'  or,  in  other  words,  the 
same  day  were  converted,  or  regenerated,  or  obeyed  the  gospel."  (Chris- 
tian System,  p.  195.) 

A.  That  is  what  we  teach ;  we  never  hesitate  to  teach  what  Peter 
did. 

Q.  Now,  does  not  that  plainly  teach  that  unless  one  has  been  im- 
mersed he  can  not  be  saved? 

A.  While  it  may  not  just  say  that,  this  is  truer  to  the  man  to  whom 
the  plain  demands  of  the  gospel  have  come,  and  who  refuses  to  be  baptized, 
there  is  no  promise  of  salvation. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  passages  I  have  read 
do  not  distinctly  teach  that  the  believing  penitent  can  not  be  received,  ac- 
cording to  the  formulated  specifications  of  the  gospel,  or  released  from 
his  guilt,  except  by  the  means  of  immersion — is  that  not  what  is  taught? 

A.  If  I  now  comprehend  what  you  mean  by  your  question,  I  answer 
that  we  teach  it. 

Q.  Is  this  the  way:  Change  of  life  precedes  baptism,  and  baptism 
constitutes  the  legal  act  by  which  the  penitent  believer  receives  remission 
of  his  sin  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts, 

A.  Mr.  Campbell  has  taught,  and  the  Christian  Church  believes,  that 
baptism  is  the  scripturally  appointed  means  by  which  the  penitent  be- 
liever is  to  come  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and,  consequently,  to  His  blood  ; 
and  through  this  appointed  means  of  coming  to  His  blood  he  receives  re- 
mission of  his  sins,  for  "the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin." 

Q.  Now,  if  you  are  through,  I  will  ask  you  to  answer  the  question. 

A,  I  am  willing  to  do  so. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  act  of  baptism  by  immersion  is 
not  the  means,  and  the  only  means,  specified  by  Alexander  Campbell, 
whereby  a  sinner  may  be  received  and  justified  according  to  the  gospel — 
whereby  he  may  be  released  from  his  guilt  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  but  he  continually  specifies  that  there  must  be  the  anteced- 
ents of  baptism,  faith  and  repentance. 

Q.  Does  he  not  say  that  it  is  the  means  by  which  he  is  saved  from  sin, 
justified  according  to  the  gospel,  and  released  from  guilt? 

A.  Mr.  Campbell  has  taught,  and  the  Christian  Church  believes,  that 
baptism  is  the  only  scriptural  ordinance  or  institution  by  which  or  through 
which  the  penitent  believer  is  to  pass  from  an  unsaved  to  a  saved  state. 

Q.  I  now  call  your  attention  to  what  Mr.  Campbell  further  says: 
"  They  taught  all  the  disciples  to  consider  not  only  themselves  as  saved  per- 
sons, but  all  whom  they  saw  or  knew  to  be  immersed  into  the  Lord  Jesus. 
They  saluted  every  one,  on  his  coming  out  of  the  water,  as  sewed,  and  re- 
corded him  as  such.  Luke  writes,  'The  Lord  added  the  saved  daily  to  the 
congregation.'  "  (Christian  System,  /.  .209.)  Now,  is  this  the  doctrine  ol 
your  Church? 

A.  We  are  willing  to  believe  and  teach  what  Luke  says  of  this  matter. 
II  he  says  the  Lord  added  the  saved  to  the  congregation  in  the  way  he  had 
stated  before,  why,  it  is  ours  to  believe  it  and  teach  it.  But  upon  this 
point  let  me  introduce  another  statement  from  Mr.  Campbell:  "While 
we  regard  immersion,  or  Christian  baptism,  as  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  use- 
ful institution,  we  neither  disparage,  nor  underrate,  a  new  heart,  repent- 
ance, or  faith ;  nay,  we  teach  with  clearness  and  definiteness  that,  un- 
preceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  it  is  of  no  value  whatsoever.  These 
two  constitute  a  change  of  heart,  a  mental  conversion ;  for  all  believing 
penitents  have  a  new  heart,  and  are  prepared  for  being  born  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."  (  Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate,  /.  tfj.) 

Q.  I  will  now  call  your  attention 

A.  Before  being  called  away  from  this,  I  desire  to  give  the  jury  an- 
other statement  by  Mr.  Campbell.  He  says:  "You  may  have  heard  me 
•ay  here  (and  the  whole  country  may  have  read  it  and  heard  it  many  a 
time )  that  a  seven-fold  immersion  in  the  river  Jordan,  or  any  other  water, 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  143 

without  a  previous  change  of  heart,  will  avail  nothing,  without  a  genuine  faith 
and  penitence.  Nor  would  the  most  strict  conformity  to  all  the  forms  and 
usages  of  the  most  perfect  church  order;  the  most  exact  observance  of  all 
the  ordinances,  without  personal  faith,  piety,  and  moral  righteousness — 
without  a  new  heart,  hallowed  lips,  and  a  holy  life,  profit  any  man  in  ref- 
erence to  eternal  salvation."  (  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  678.) 

Q.  Well,  Alexander  Campbell  held  a  debate  with  Dr.  Rice,  of  th« 
Presbyterian  Church,  did  he  not? 

A.  He  did,  sir. 

Q.  Mr.  Rice  made  charges  against  Mr.  Campbell,  stating  that  he  was 
not  orthodox,  alleging  that  he  did  not  accept  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  giv- 
ing him  an  opportunity  to  take  a  position  upon  that  subject.  But  what 
did  he  do  ?  He  tried  to  head  around  it  and  get  out  of  it.  Is  not  that  true  ? 

A.  1  know  nothing  of  Mr.  Rice's  making  charges  against  Mr.  Camp- 
bell of  heterodoxy,  but  Mr.  Campbell  made  a  statement  with  reference  to 
the  whisperings  and  gossip  of  a  certain  kind  of  religionists  upon  this  sub- 
ject, that  was  so  satisfactory  that  the  matter  was  not  mentioned  afterward. 
He  said:  "Much  has  been  said,  and  whispered,  and  gossiped  concerning 
my  heterodoxy.  But,  sir,  allow  me  to  compliment  myself — I  am,  in  all 
the  great  and  weighty  matters  of  religion,  more  orthodox  than  any  of  my 
impugners.  I  speak  it  not  boastingly,  sir,  but  in  declaration  of  my  gen- 
eral views  of  all  gospel  truths.  I  do  not  believe,  sir,  most  sincerely,  that 
there  is  any  of  those  gentlemen  that  oppose  us,  more  radically  and  univer- 
sally orthodox  on  all  these  great  subjects  of  evangelical  faith,  piety,  and 
morality  than  we."  (  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  701.) 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Campbell  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  in  answering  a 
statement  that  had  been  made  in  reference  to  his  remarks,  said :  "Accord- 
ing to  my  friend,  every  infant  that  is  baptized,  no  matter  how  the  cere- 
mony is  performed,  is  baptismally  purified;  and,  consequently,  without 
faith ;  and,  therefore,  his  purification  is  without  faith.  I  believe  that  this 
baptismal  purification  comes  through  faith  only.  Hence  faith  is  the  vital 
principle,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  According  to  my 
views,  a  person  believes,  repents,  and  is  baptized  in  order  to  purification. 
According  to  his  views,  he  is  purified,  sanctified,  adopted,  if  an  adult,  by 
faith  alone;  but,  if  an  infant,  by  sprinkling  alone,  without  faith  or  intelli- 
gence. An  adult,  with  him,  if  he  have  faith  he  has  everything — pardon, 
justification,  sanctification ;  he  is  a  child  of  God,  he  is  begotten  of  God, 
he  is  born  of  God,  has  everything.  There  is  no  use  for  baptism  or  the 
Lord's  supper ;  all  means  and  ordinances,  according  to  his  position,  are 
mere  superfluities,  so  far  as  these  benefits  are  implied.  But  we  plead  for 
faith,  because  without  it  we  can  not  please  God ;  but  not  for  faith  alone." 
{  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  458.)  Is  that  your  doctrine  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Cnnl  Courts. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  Church — it  is  ac- 
cepted in  the  sense  in  which  Mr.  Campbell  presented  it. 

Q.  Well,  now,  this  is  your 

A.  I  desire  here  to  say  that  what  Mr.  Campbell  has  taught  respecting 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  with  Mr.  Campbell's  own  explanation  of  that 
teaching,  the  Christian  Church  believes  from  beginning  to  end ;  but  we  do 
not  accept  it  as  his  enemies  and  the  counsel  have  tried  to  interpret  it. 

Q.  Now  it  appears  that  you  have  shown  an  extraordinary  memory  in 
answering  as  to  the  doctrines  of  your  Church;  but  you  have  repeatedly 
stated  to  the  jury  that,  with  his  explanations,  you  believe  what  Mr.  Camp- 
bell says.  Now,  do  you  think  he  is  always  right  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  do  not,  by  any  means. 

Q.  Does  every  member  exercise  this  right  of  discrimination  ? 

A.  They  may,  for  the  teachings  of  Alexander  Campbell  are  accepted 
in  precisely  the  same  way  as  the  teachings  of  any  other  man  are  accepted. 

Q.  Don't  each  member  of  your  Church  believe  what  he  pleases? 

A.  No  one  is  compelled  to  believe  a  thing  because  Alexander  Camp- 
bell believed  it.  A  member  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  not  compelled,  I 
believe,  to  accept  the  teachings  of  John  Wesley,  only  as  these  have  found 
places  in  the  Methodist  Discipline ;  so  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church 
are  under  no  obligation  to  accept  what  Alexander  Campbell  has  taught, 
only  as  it  finds  a  place  in  their  standard  of  faith  and  discipline,  the  Bible. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Carpenter,  is  it  not  true  that  Mr.  Campbell  is  the 
founder  of  your  Church,  and  that  the  members  of  it  have  been  recogniz- 
ing the  authority  of  his  writings?  In  the  decision  of  questions  relating 
to  your  ecclesiastical  doctrines,  has  he  not  become  the  authority? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  not  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  and  the  German  Methodist  Church — have  not  all  these 
repudiated  your  actions  since  1823,  and  declared  that  your  Church  was 
heterodox  and  not  orthodox? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  and  more,  I  am  not  very  much  concerned  about 
it,  for  all  of  them  combined  can  not  establish  a  standard  of  orthodoxy. 
That  standard  is  the  true  teaching  of  the  Bible  alone;  God,  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  His  Spirit,  has  established  that  standard,  and  by  it  we  stand  or 
fall. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  a  church  considered  as  orthodox,  since  the  organ- 
ization of  your  first  congregation  in  1823,  but  what  has  considered  you  as 
not  orthodox?  Ar.d  further:  I  will  ask  you  if,  in  the  whole  known  world, 
all  orthodox  people  have  not  excluded  your  Church  as  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  will  admit  that  in  the  early  part  of  our  history  as  a  movement 
for  the  restoration  of  primitive  Christianity,  from  1823  subsequently,  the 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts.  /yj 

so-called  orthodox  denominations  did  not  fall  upon  our  necks  in  the  atti- 
tude of  affection  and  suffuse  us  with  kisses — we  had  to  fight  or  fall;  but  if 
that  be  evidence  of  our  heterodoxy,  then  there  is  hot  an  orthodox  denomi- 
nation in  existence,  for  they  have  all  had  the  same  experience.  At  one 
time  the  Lutherans,  the  Presbyterians,  the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  the 
Quakers,  and  all,  were  held  at  arm's  length. 

Q.  Well,  are  not  all  orthodox  people  different  ? 

A.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  self-asserted,  so-called  orthodox 
people  are  all  different.  Some  of  them  set  forth  unconditional  election, 
and  others  cry  for  a  conditional  salvation;  some  of  them  stand  out  for 
floods  of  water,  and  some  of  them  contend  for  a  few  drops  only ;  some  of 
therp  hoot  the  idea  of  falling  from  grace,  and  others  walk  in  mortal  fear 
lest  *hey  have  lost  their  hold;  some  of  them  are  broad  and  liberal  in  their 
views,  and  some  of  them  like  to  impale  their  victims  on  the  poniard  of 
heterodoxy.  Yes,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  all  orthodox  people  are 
different. 

Q.  Ah,  ha!  Have  you  ever  read  the  Baptist  work  entitled  "Camp- 
bellism  Examined,"  and  are  you  acquainted  with  its  author,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
J.  B.  Jeter? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  read  the  book,  and  have  seen  the  author. 

Q.  It  is  a  pamphlet,  is  it  not? 

A.  It  is  a  book. 

Q.  How? 

A.  It  is  a  book  of  about  four  hundred  pages,  I  think. 

Q.  Well,  it  has  three  hundred  and  sixty-nine  pages  exclusive  of  other 
matter.  I  will  now  ask  you  to  state,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  Baptist  Church 
of  the  State  of  Virginia  did  not  refuse  to  fellowship  with  you  on  the  ground 
that  you  were  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  such  action. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  Baptist  Church  in  the  State  of  Virginia, 
in  the  year  1852,  passed  the  following  resolution:  "Resolved,  That  this 
Association  [meaning  the  Baptist  Association  of  the  State  of  Virginia]  can 
not  conscientiously  receive  members  and  ministers  from  the  Campbellite  or 
Christian  Church ;"  and  that  the  Association  refused  to  recognize  your 
ministers  in  their  ministerial  meetings,  when,  at  the  same  time,  it  received 
and  recognized  members  of  other  churches  as  orthodox  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of,  sir.  However,  I  was  in  the  city  of  Richmond, 
Virginia,  in  the  year  1876,  attending  the  meetings  of  our  General  Mis- 
sionary Convention,  and  Dr.  Jeter  attended  the  sessions  of  the  Convention. 
He  was  interested  in  the  meetings,  and  in  an  address  made  at  one  of  the 
evening  sessions,  the  Doctor  said  that  he  was  very  sorry  that  he  did  not 
know  a  good  many  years  ago  what  he  did  then;  for  if  he  had,  a  good  many 


1 4.6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

things  that  were  written  would  not  have  been  written,  and  a  good  many 
things  done  that  would  not  have  been  done. 

Q.  Do  you  know,  sir,  that  the  Baptist  Church  ever  rescinded  that  reso- 
lution against  your  Church? 

A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it ;  but  I  do  know  that  the  Baptist 
Church  is  very  glad  to  receive  our  people  into  its  fellowship  whenever  it 
has  an  opportunity,  though  the  opportunity  seldom  comes ;  and  that,  too, 
when  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  of  other  churches,  are  not  received  unless  they  are  immersed. 
I  guess  the  Baptist  folks  like  us  pretty  well. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  they  do  this  because  of  your  being  immersed  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  think  not  on  that  ground  only. 

Q.  You  think  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Practically,  your  Church  and  the  Baptist  Church  are  the  same,  are 
they  not? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  are  not. 

Q,  When  was  the  Evangelical  Alliance  organized  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know,  sir ;  I  am  not  able  to  tell  the  time. 

Q.  Do  its  members  have  to  conform  to  any  creed? 

A.  Well,  none  in  particular,  I  believe.  Probably  what  is  known  as 
the  Apostles'  Creed  expresses  what  they  hold  in  common. 

Q.  Well,  is  there  any  sentence  in  the  creed  that  requires  its  members 
to  be  orthodox  in  belief? 

A.  My  understanding  is  that  they  make  the  Apostles'  Creed  the  test 
for  membership.  They  may  have  some  such  statement  of  what  is  evan- 
gelical as  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  has.  In  the  International 
Convention  at  Portland,  1869,  that  Association  defined  evangelical  as  fol- 
lows: "And  we  hold  those  churches  to  be  evangelical  which,  maintaining 
the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  do  be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  King  of 
kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  in  whom  dwelleth  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily,  and  who  was  made  sin  for  us,  though  knowing  no  sin,  bearing  our 
sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree),  as  the  only  name  under  heaven  given 
among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved  from  everlasting  punishment." 
(Constitution  Y.  M.  C.  A.)  That  expresses  our  position. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  that  article  is  not  essen- 
tial to  orthodox  belief— that  the  members  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  are 
required  to  be  correct  in  the  majority  of  orthodox  requirements  as  a  con- 
dition to  membership? 

A.  I  am  not  thoroughly  informed  as  to  the  organization  of  the  Evan- 
gelical  Alliance,  but  I  have  no  such  understanding. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 


Reexamination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  Mr.  Carpenter,  I  believe  your  attention  has  been  called  to  an  ency- 
clopedia since  you  have  been  present  here. 

A.  I  have  several  encyclopedias  in  my  library. 

Q.  Have  you  noticed  the  statements  of  the  different  doctrines  or  be- 
liefs in  them? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  - 

A.  I  have  had  to  look  at  the  book  several  times. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  remember  this  from  the  Library  of  Universal 
Knowledge  - 

(To  this  objection  was  maae.j 

Q.  Well,  I  will  ask  you  xo  state,  Mr.  Witness,  whether  or  not  your 
Church  has  been  recognized  and  admitted  as  orthodox  in  its  teaching  and 
practice  in  any  way. 

A.  It  is  my  understanding  that  it  has.  And  as  far  as  I  myself  am  con- 
cerned, I  have  never  known  an  instance  in  which  we  were  not  so  recog- 
nized. I  have  been  in  attendance  at  the  general  meetings  and  conventions 
of  the  different  churches,  union  associations,  the  international  Sunday- 
school  conventions,  etc.,  and  1  have  never  known  it  to  be  called  in 
question. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  in  those  meetings  you  were  treated 
as  the  preachers  of  the  other  cnurches  were  treated. 

A.  Precisely  so  ;  there  has  oeen  no  difference,  so  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  discover. 

Q.  You  may  state,  sir,  whether  or  not,  when  you  have  been  present 
at  the  worship  of  any  other  cnurcn,  say  for  instance  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal, you  have  been  invited  to  commune  with  them. 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have  been  invited  to  commune  with  them,  and  have 
frequently  done  so. 

Q.  I  will  now  ask  you,  do  you  invite  the  members  of  the  Presby- 
terian, Methodist,  Baptist,  ana  other  churches  to  commune  with  you? 

A.  Well,  sir,  the  close  communion  Baptists  do  not  commune  with  any 
one  except  those  of  "  their  own  faith  and  order." 

Q.  Oh  !  well,  I  mean  churcnes  liberal  in  their  communion  and  claiming 
to  be  orthodox. 

A.  Well,  sir,  we  say  that  the  table  is  the  Lord's,  and  that  all  who  are 
the  children  of  the  Lord  have  a  right  to  a  place  at  that  table;  and  as  the 
Scriptures  enjoin  each  one  to  examine  himself  and  so  eat,  we  invite  all  who 
can  honestly  pass  this  self-examination  to  commune  with  us  and  celebrate 
with  us  the  great  event  that  Drought  redemption  to  the  world  ;  and  thou- 


14.8  Our  Orthodoxy  In  the  Civil  Courts. 

sands  of  all  these  denominations  have  thus  communed  with  us  and  brought 
to  themselves  spiritual  good. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  known  any  of  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church 
to  be  refused  the  communion  by  any  of  these  churches,  except  by  the  close 
communion  Baptists? 

A.  No,  sir;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  invite  us. 

Q.  Have  the  writings  of  Alexander  Campbell,  or  of  any  other  man  in 
the  Disciples'  or  Christian  Church,  been  adopted  as  its  true  doctrine  and 
principles? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  writings  of  Alexander  Campbell  are  no  more  authori- 
tative than  my  writings,  or  the  writings  of  any  other  man ;  and  no  human 
production  ever  has  or  ever  will  be  authoritative  enough  to  become  a 
standard — the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone  holds  that  place. 

Q.  You  were  asked  whether  or  not  a  person,  if  he  avowed  things  con- 
trary to  the  main  teaching  of  the  gospel,  would  be  allowed  to  remain  in 
your  Church.  I  now  ask  you,  sir,  whether  or  not  a  member,  denying  any 
of  the  cardinal  doctrines  or  teachings  generally  recognized  by  Christians  as 
the  standard,  would  be  permitted  to  remain  in  the  Church? 

A.  Do  you  mean  if  he  were  to  refuse  to  recognize  them  ? 

Q.  I  mean  if  he  were  to  deny  them. 

A.  No,  sir;  that  man  would  not  be  recognized  in  the  Church. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  liberty  of  which  you  speak  as  being  allowed 
to  persons  in  the  Church  pertains  only  to  the  minor  points,  and  not  to  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church? 

A.  The  liberty  of  which  I  spoke  pertains  to  those  things  which  the 
Scriptures  do  not  make  necessary  to  salvation — to  those  things  the  accept- 
ance and  rejection  of  which  will  neither  secure  nor  imperil  salvation  ;  but 
to  those  things  to  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  salvation  there  is  no  turning 
away  from  them,  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the  left.  These  are  the 
matters  of  faith,  and  not  of  opinion.  It  is  in  opinions  that  we  allow 
liberty. 

Q.  And  you  are  liberal  in  respect  of  them? 

A.  We  try  to  be. 

Q.  Mr.  Baker  labored  a  long  time  to  get  you  to  say  that  Alexander 
Campbell  is  the  founder  of  the  Christian  Church.  Does  the  Church  so 
recognize  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  Church  does  not  so  recognize  him  or  any  other  man, 
not  even  the  Apostle  Peter,  though  to  him  were  given  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

Q.  Is  this  not  the  teaching  of  your  Church:  that  the  original  Church 
of  Christ  was  first  instituted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  the  Apostle  Peter, 
acting  under  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  through  the  inspira- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  14.9 

tion  of  the  Spirit  whom  he  sent  on  that  day,  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  of 
Apostles,  and  that  the  members  of  that  Church  are  called  Christians  ? 

A.  That  is  a  correct  statement  of  its  teaching  upon  that  point. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true,  Mr.  Witness,  that  you  meant  to  be  understood  as 
saying  that  Christian  persons,  irrespective  of  wheje  they  are  found,  from 
the  primitive  Church  on  down  to  the  present  time,  are  members  of  Christ's 
Church,  and  not  as  members  of  any  particular  branch  of  any  church? 

A.  That  is  what  I  said  to  the  jury.  The  Church  of  Christ  does  not 
consist  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  so-called.  The  only  organization 
known  to  the  Scriptures  is  the  local  congregation,  and  that  was  organized, 
not  to  give  membership  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  to  band  together 
those  who  are  members  of  His  Church  that  they  may  mutually  work  out 
the  great  object  of  Christ's  mission — the  salvation  of  their  souls.  Hence, 
wherever  there  has  been  a  genuine  Christian,  there  has  been  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Church  of  Chnst. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  the  relation  to  be  which  Alexander  Camp- 
bell sustained  to  the  'Christian  Church  ? 

A.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  understood  by  the  Church  that  he  was  a 
member  of  the  local  congregation  in  Bethany,  West  Virginia,  where  he  lived, 
and  was  an  elder  in  it.  In  the  second  place,  he  is  recognized  as  a  distin- 
guished man  for  his  pulpit  ability,  his  polemic  power,  his  superior  scholar- 
ship, and  his  inexhaustible  resources  as  a  writer,  he  having  written  a  large 
number  of  volumes  and  published  papers  for  a  great  many  years ;  but  not- 
withstanding the  possession  and  recognition  of  these  masterly  qualities,  he 
was  only  a  humble  member  of  the  local  congregation  where  he  lived, 
with  what  authority  the  office  of  elder  would  give  him  in  that  congrega- 
tion alone. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  restoration  which  Mr.  Campbell 
and  his  coadjutors  attempted,  in  1823,  was  the  establishment  of  any  new 
church,  and  whether  or  not  it  gave  any  new  styled  theological  doctrine 
different  from  the  established  principles  of  Christianity? 

A.  No,  sir;  he  established  no  new  church,  and  he  put  forth  no  new 
theory;  but  he  contended  for  the  restoration  of  primitive  Christianity  with 
the  Church  of  Christ  as  it  was  then  established,  and  in  doing  this  he  neces- 
sarily held  debates  and  discussions  with  the  ministers  who  represented  the 
various  churches  and  denominations,  for  the  reason  that  if  the  primitive 
Church  were  restored  in  its  simplicity  much  that  had  become  incorporated 
in  these  churches  would  have  to  be  thrown  overboard,  for  they  differ  widely 
from  the  church  described  in  the  Bible. 

Q.  Is  this  one  of  them  (holding  up  Campbell  and  Rice's  Debate)  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  he  held  a  discussion  with  Mr.  Robert  Owen,  of 
Scotland,  upon  the  evidences  of  Christianity? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  t/te  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Yes,  sir,  he  did. 

Q.  Was  that  discussion  published  and  circulated  generally  over  the 
world  ? 

A.  It  was  published,  and  it  has  had  a  very  general  circulation,  being 
found  in  nearly  all  the  public  and  in  a  very  great  many  private  libraries. 

Q.  Where  was  that  discussion  held  ? 

A.  It  was  held  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  in  April,  1829. 

Q.  Was  it  prior  or  subsequent  to  the  debate  with  Mr.  Rice? 

A.  It  was  several  years  prior,  the  debate  with  Mr.  Rice  being  in 
November,  1843. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that,  because  Mr.  Campbell  held  discussions 
with  the  ministers  of  other  churches,  he  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  at 
heterodox  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  for  then  are  all  heterodox. 

Q.  Is  it  not  true,  and  has  it  not  been  so  in  all  time  past,  that  there 
have  been  discussions ;  and  have  not  the  ministers  of  the  various  churches 
debated  among  themselves  ? 

A.  I  have  known  a  great  many  discussions.  The  Baptists  have  held 
discussions ;  and  all  the  other  churches  have  done  so  among  themselves, 
as  well  as  with  us. 

Q.  Do  other  churches  hold  discussions,  too  ? 

A.  That  is  just  what  I  was  saying.  I  have  known  other  churches  to 
hold  discussions  as  well  as  ours. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  you  may  state  whether  or  not  this  Church,  upon  the 
main  points  essential  to  orthodoxy,  is  similar  to  the  other  so-called  or- 
thodox churches,  as  the  Presbyterians,  the  Baptists,  etc.,  etc. 

A.  I  understand  that  it  does  not  materially  differ  with  them  on  those 
points — the  differences  are  upon  the  minor  points. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  because  of  those  differences  some  are  or- 
thodox and  some  are  not? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  understand  the  word  orthodox, 
as  applied  to  religious  belief,  means  the  doctrines  generally  taught  in  the 
Bible  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  essentially  necessary  to  be  believed  that 
a  person  may  be  admitted  into  the  Church  of  Christ? 

A.  I  do,  sir;  together  with  those  that  are  necessary  to  keep  him  in  the 
Church  after  he  is  in. 

Q.  Does  it  mean  anything  else? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  all. 

[Here  the  plaintiff  rested.] 


CHAPTER  IX. 

SECTION  VL 

TESTIMONY   BY  REV.  J.  W.  SMITH. 

The  Rev,  J.  W.  Smith,  being  duly  sworn   to  testify  on  behalf  of  the 
defendant,  depow,.1  as  follows: 


Examination  in  Ckitf. 

Q.  You  may  stt«te  your  name  to  the  court  and  jury. 

A.  My  name  is  )t>hn  W.  Smith. 

Q.  You  may  state  what  your  profession  or  calling  is. 

A.  My  calling  is  that  of  a  minister  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  such  a  minister? 

A.  Ever  since  the  year  1845. 

Q.  Whereabouts  have  you  served  as  such  minister,  generally  speaking? 

A.  Through  Northeastern  Indiana,  the  northeastern  quarter  of  the 
State  ;  and  with  some  of  the  churches  of  the  Northwestern  Conference. 

Q.  You  may  state  to  the  jury  whether  or  not  you  have  a  knowledge  of 
the  church  generally  known  as  the  Christian  Church  —  it  is  sometimes  called 
the  Campbellite  Church. 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  a  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  that  Church. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  you  may  state  to  the  jury  about  how  long  you  have 
had  a  knowledge  of  that  Church  —  how  long  since  your  attention  was 
called  to  it. 

A.  My  attention  was  called  to  it  in  a  very  early  period  of  my  life  — 
before  I  was  a  minister  or  directly  afterwards  —  perhaps  about  the  year  1833. 

Q.  Now,  then,  have  you  ever  had  occasion  to  learn  the  various  phases 
of  doctrine,  belief,  and  practice  of  that  Church?  If  so,  state  in  what  re- 
spect your  attention  has  been  called  to  them. 

A.  My  attention  was  called  to  the  doctrine  or  belief  of  that  Church 
by  hearing  its  ministers  preach  and  by  reading  publications  —  books,  pamph- 
lets, periodicals,  etc.  —  published  by  its  members. 

Q.  You  may  now  state  what  the  fact  is  in  this  respect,  whether  or  not 
you  have  given  the  matter  such  attention  as  would  enable  you  to  know  and 
understand  its  doctrines  and  belief. 

A.  I  think  so,  to  a  tolerable  accuracy  ;  I  think  I  am  correctly  informed. 


152  Our  OrtJiodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  now  ask  you  to  state  to  the  jury  whether  or 
not  this  Church,  in  its  doctrines  and  belief,  is  orthodox. 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 
A.  The  opinion  which  I  have  been  led  to  form  is  that,  in  the  gener 
ally  accepted  sense  of  the  term  "orthodox"  or  "orthodoxy,"  I  have  not 
regarded  the  teaching  as  a  whole — the  definite  teaching  by  which  that  de- 
nomination is  distinguished  from  the  other  denominations — as  orthodox. 
1  understand  my  opinion  to  be  inquired  for. 

Cross- Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  in  what  portion  of  the  country  was  it  that  you  came  in 
contact  with  the  Christian  Church,  and  heard  the  ministers  preach  an< 
teach  their  doctrines? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  understand  the  entire  question. 

Q.  You  stated  in  your  examination-in-chief  that  you  had  become  a«. 
quainted  with  the  doctrines  or  belief  of  the  Christian  or  Disciples'  Churck, 
and  that  you  had  heard  its  ministers  preach  and  had  read  its  publications. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  portion  of  the  country  was  it  that  you  heard  those  mins- 
ters preach  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  them  preach  in  various  portions  and  charges  of  the 
State  where  I  have  labored  for  any  extended  portion  of  time — at  Marion, 
and  at  Alexandria,  and  in  almost  all  of  the  places  where  I  have  labored  or 
have  had  charges. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  in  your  opinion  the 
Christian  Church  is  not  orthodox;  am  I  right? 

A.  That  is  correct ;  that  is,  in  the  definite  features  by  which  it  is  di» 
tinguished  from  other  denominations. 

Q.  That  is,  so  far  as  it  differs  from  other  denominations  it  is  not 
orthodox? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  word  "orthodoxy"? 

A.  I  understand  by  that  term  "right  opinion"  or  "correct  opinion" 
in  matters  pertaining  to  Christianity  as  a  faith  in  the  Bible ;  or,  ii»  other 
words,  the  belief  defining  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 

Q.  Does  not  the  etymology  of  the  word — the  Greek  6pfl<k  (ortfos)  and 
&>ft  (doxa) — indicate  that  it  means  right  teaching  or  right  opinion? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  right  teaching.  The  word  Wfx  (doxa),  I  understand,  has 
come  to  mean  opinion  or  belief. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  the  wordicfa  (doxa)  is  not  derived  from  the  word 
facet?  (dokein),  meaning  to  think? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  be  derived  from  &>&*>  (doxazo),  meaning  to  be- 
lieve or  esteem. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  To  believe  or  esteem? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  it  is  not  derived  from  SOKW  (dokein)  ? 

A.  I  think  not,  directly. 

Q.  What  is  the  definition  given  by  Webster  of  the  word  "orthodox" 
or  "orthodoxy  "? 

A.  If  I  recollect  correctly,  Webster  defines  it  as  right  opinion  in 
matters  pertaining  to  religion.  That  is  my  recollection — I  do  not  claim  to 
have  the  exact  phraseology. 

Q.  You  are  substantially  correct.  You  mean  religious  doctrine,  to 
make  it  correspond  with  the  definition  by  Webster  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  understanding  of  orthodoxy. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  think  there  must  be  a  unanimity  in  all 
matters  of  opinion  in  order  that  there  be  an  orthodoxy  ?  Or,  if  not,  what 
opinions  are  essential  to  the  doctrines  of  orthodoxy? 

A.  The  word  orthodoxy  surely  implies,  as  it  is  used  in  its  modern 
sense,  things  different  from  what  it  does  in  its  complete  application.  The 
word  orthodox,  as  it  is  used  in  this  complete  application,  would  require  the 
correct  opinion  in  every  particular — correct  in  the  ordinary  and  correct  in 
the  general  acceptation. 

Q.  ( By  the  defendant.)     In  all  things  ? 

A.  But  in  the  general  acceptation  of  orthodoxy,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
these  things,  it  is  not  necessary  to  include  the  minor  points,  upon  which 
there  may  be  some  difference.  At  least  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  churches. 

Q.  What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Smith:  Is  the  \\esleyan  Creed,  in  the 
main,  considered  orthodox? 

A.  So  far  as  that  goes.     That  creed  does  not  specify,  if  I  recollect. 

Q.  And  that  Church  adopted  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  its  statement  of 
belief.  Would  you  not  call  the  Apostles'  Creed  orthodox  ? 

A.  As  far  as  it  extends. 

Q.  Well,  what  would  be  the  difference  from  the  Apostles'  Creed  ? 

A.  There  was  a  difference — well,  there  was  a  difference  in  the  car- 
dinal— in  the  cardinal  points.  The  doctrine  of  a  great  and  all-creative 
Being,  coupled  with  the  other,  is  sound  doctrine. 

Q.  Well,  now,  suppose  you  state  what  doctrines  can  be  drawn  from 
the  Apostles'  Creed  which  can  be  considered  as  sound  doctrine. 

A.   Have  you  the  place  ? 

Q.  "I  believe  in  God  the  Father  almighty,  maker  of  heaven  and 
earth."  That  is  sound  doctrine,  is  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  God's  only  Son,  our  Lord;  which  was 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried;  he  descended  into  hell; 
the  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead;  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  almighty ;  from  thence  he 
shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead."  Would  you  call  that  sound 
doctrine  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  holy  catholic  church ;  the  com- 
munion of  saints;  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  the  resurrection  of  the  body; 
and  the  life  everlasting."  Now,  what  do  you  think  of  the  church  that 
believes  that,  and  accepts  it  ?  Do  you  consider  that  an  orthodox  statement 
of  belief? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  so  far  as  it  goes. 

Q.  What  of  this:  "The  Spirit  is  said  to  do,  and  to  have  done,  all 
that  God  does  and  all  that  God  has  done.  It  has  ascribed  to  it  all  divine 
perfections  and  works  ;  and  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  designated  as  the 
immediate  author  and  agent  of  the  new  creation,  and  of  the  holiness  of 
Christians.  It  is,  therefore,  called  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  sublime  and  in- 
effable relation  of  the  deity,  or  godhead,  it  stands  next  to  the  Incarnate 
Word.  Anciently,  or  before  time,  it  was  GOD,  the  WORD  of  God,  and  the 
SPIRIT  of  God.  But  now,  in  the  development  of  the  Christian  scheme, 
it  is  'the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit' — one  God,  one  Lord,  one 
Spirit.  To  us  Christians  there  is,  then,  but  one  God,  even  the  Father,  and 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  even  the  Saviour;  and  one  Spirit,  even  the  Advo- 
cate- the  Sanctifier,  and  the  Comforter  of  Christ's  body — the  church. 
Jesus  is  the  head,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  life  and  animating  principle  of  that 
body"  ?  (Christian  System,  p.  24.) 

A.  I  do  not  understand  the  passage. 

Q.  "To  us  Christians  there  is,  then,  but  one  God,  even  the  Father, 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  even  the  Saviour ;  and  one  Spirit,  even  the 
Advocate,  the  Sanctifier,  and  the  Comforter  of  Christ's  body — the  church. 
Jesus  is  the  head,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  life  and  animating  principle  of  that 
body."  Now,  you  have  it  again;  do  you  understand  it? 

A.  There  is  a  difference  between  that  expression  and  the  matter  as  it 
is  expressed  in  the  gospel. 

Q.  Well,  but  so  far  as  that  statement  is  concerned  you  think  it  is  or- 
thodox, do  you  not? 

A.  In  the  sense  that  the  gospel  is  the  means  by  which  God  has  placed 
the  sinner  in  such  situation  that  he  can  repent  of  his  sins  and  come  to  sal- 
vation and  be  blessed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  life — in  that  sense  it  is 
orthodox. 

Q.  There  can  be  but  one  sense — there  can  be  but  one  meaning  of  the 
expression,  can  there? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  If  you  request  the  exact  import  of  that  expression,  I  would  say  that 
there  is  a  variety  of  meanings  among  the  churches — the  term  gospel  is  not 
always  considered  as  meaning  the  same. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Smith,  if  a  brother  come  into  the  church  and  believe 
your  doctrine,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned  he  is  orthodox,  is  he  not? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  answered.) 

Q.  How  is  that  Mr.  Smith  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  necessary  that  a  man  believe  in  the  Divine  Being,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  of  course  he  must  believe  in  the  Bible, 
in  order  to  come  into  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Q.  I  desire  to  call  your  attention,  and  ask  you  if  that  is  the  explana- 
tion you  would  make  ? 

A.  I  should  regard  that  as  the  faith  that  is  necessary  to  have,  a  faith 
in  the  Divine  Being. 

Q.  Have  you  given  a  definite  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  faith 
that  are  necessary  for  a  person  to  believe  in  order  to  come  into  your 
Church? 

A.  If  the  meaning  I  have  given  is  not  misapplied. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  if  you  have  done  it  ? 

A.  If  I  have? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  If  I  understand  it,  I  have  no  objection  to  this  liberal  thought  or 
statement  of  belief :  I  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  suffered 
and  died,  or  was  sacrificed  upon  the  cross,  and  that  we  are  to  live  in  the 
way  of  His  commandments,  lead  a  new  life,  repent  of  our  sins,  and  turn 
to  God. 

Q.  And  you  require  a  person  to  be  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  a  faith  in  all  his  transactions  in  all  things. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  necessary  to  have  a  faith  in  all  the  theological 
dogmas  that  a  man  may  become  a  church  member  ? 

A.  I  say  that  in  the  main  he  must  be  correct. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  I  want  you  to  tell  us  in  what  the  Christian 
Church  is  not  orthodox — what  particular  doctrines  you  regard  as  being  not 
orthodox 

A.  In  my  own  opinion 

Q.  You  have  already  stated  that  you  do  not  regard  the  members  of 
the  Christian  Church  as  being  orthodox  in  regard  to  their  doctrines.  You 
were  asked  to  give  your  opinion,  and  you  said  that  you  think  their  doc- 
trines are  not  orthodox.  Now,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  state  to  the 
jury  wherein  you  think  they  are  not  orthodox? 

A.  That  is,  wherein  I  consider  they  are  not  orthodox  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 


156  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  difference  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  three  personages  in  the  Godhead — the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 
That,  I  think,  is  essential  to  the  correct  idea  of  the  Divine  Being.  The 
belief  of  His  existence  is  essential,  and  that  there  are  three  divine  beings, 
or  personages ;  that  these  continue  to  exist  in  union — inseparable  union, 
and  not  distinct — each  as  a  divine  personage,  but  united  and  inseparable 
in  form  and  eternity,  and  that  He  exists  in  these  relations.  In  the  Script- 
ures the  divinity  is  designated  by  the  term  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 
Now,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  comprise  the  Trinity,  and  they  are 
eternal — in  that  existence  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  they  are  one 
eternal  Godhead.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  when  we  speak  of  it. 
The  Christian  Church  believes  that  these  personages  are  not  equal,  and  in 
this  respect  it  is  not  orthodox.  As  to  the  Holy  Spirit  being  a  personage, 
it  believes  that  He  is  not  equal  in  existence — coequal — with  the  Father ; 
that  is,  He  is  not  coequal  with  the  Father  in  existence. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith 

A.  That  is,  on  the  ground  as  I  stated  the  personages  of  the  Trinity. 

Q.  Well,  inasmuch  as  you  have  now  given  your  opinion  upon  that 
point,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention,  if  you  please,  to  this  paragraph: 

A.  Very  well. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  consider  this  a  correct  statement:  "The 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  Son  is  one  in  substance  with  the  Father  "  ?  Is  that 
statement  orthodox? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  a  correct  statement,  I  think. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  Christian  Church  believes  in  the  three  personages,  in 
a  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  do  you  not  say  that  it  is  correct  in  that  item? 
Mr.  Smith,  is  it  not  true  that  ever  since  the  great  controversy  of  1843  it 
has  been  understood  that  the  Christian  Church  believes  there  is  a  plurality  in 
the  Godhead?  and  is  it  not,  therefore,  orthodox  in  its  belief  on  the  Trinity? 

A.  I  will  ask  you  to  make  the  last  statement  you  made  again. 

Q,  Oh!  yes,  sir.  Is  it  not  true  that  ever  since  the  great  controversy  of 
1843  it  has  been  understood  that  the  Christian  Church  believes  there  is  a 
plurality  in  the  Godhead?  and  is  it  not,  therefore,  orthodox  in  its  belief  on 
the  Trinity?  Is  not  that  good  trinitarian  doctrine,  that  there  are  three  di. 
vine  personages  which  are  one? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  those  two  statements  you  have  made  are  very  nearl) 
correct. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  I  will  ask  you  if  all  that  is  not  good,  sound  trin 
itarianism  ? 

A.  There  is  no  great  difference  of  opinion  as  thus  stated;  but  so  far 
as  that  is  concerned,  at  the  same  time  the  Christian  Churcn  may  believe 
substantially  the  doctrines  which  are  taught  by  all  trii.itarians,  yet  it  may 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

be  said  that  there  is  no  distinction,  no  important  distinction,  made  by  the 
Church  in  relation  to  these  personages. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  Mr.  Smith,  your  idea  is  that  they  are  heretical 
because  of  their  belief,  and  not  because  of  any  particular  expression  of 
their  belief?  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  or  not  you  would  make  this 
a  test  of  orthodoxy. 

A.  It  is  not  fully  particularized. 

Q.  What  is  there  in  orthodox  doctrine  upon  that  subject? 

A.  We  think  that  a  person  should  believe  in  God  and  the  unity  of  the 
Godhead ;  that  they  are  made  manifest  merely  by  the  Spirit,  and  that  it 
sustains  certain  relations  to  redemption.  But  there  are  certain  attributes  of 
the  Divine  Being:  that  He  is  eternal;  that_  He  existed  and  continues  to 
exist  through  all  eternity ;  that  He  manifests  His  Spirit  as  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit.  There  is,  as  I  have  often  observed,  the  same  properties  with 
respect  to  each — that  each  has  a  distinct  existence  as  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit ;  and  he  that  admits  that  theory  is  sound  to  the  bottom.  All 
must  acquiesce  in  these  things,  for  they  make  us  wise  unto  salvation.  All 
must  believe  in  the  Trinity,  and  worship  it,  for  this  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. All  must  believe  in  a  divine  and  eternal  existence  in  the  one  God- 
head, and  he  that  does  not  believe  this  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  That  is,  that  there  are  three  personages  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir;  that  there  are  three  personages  and,  as  I  understand  it, 
that  these  personages  have  a  continuous  existence. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  say  that  the  Christian  Church  does  not  believe  that 
doctrine? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  them  to  so  teach  by  those  different  men  whom 
I  have  heard  preach. 

Q.  Do  you  intend  to  testify,  Mr.  Smith,  that  the  Christian  Church 
does  not  believe  there  are  three  personages,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit? 

A.  As  I  am  informed,  I  do  not  understand  them  to  teach  it.  So  far 
as  I  have  heard  their  teaching  and  preaching,  I  have  been  led  to  think  and 
understand  that  they  are  not  orthodox  in  their  teaching  in  this  respect. 

Q.  Well,  now,  I  will  ask  you,  to  quicken  your  memory — I  will  ask 
you  whether  or  not  you  pretend  to  say  that  the  Christian  Church  does  not 
believe  in  one  Godhead  ? 

A.  I  have  not  been  able  to  understand  it  so. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  they  do  not  believe  it,  Mr.  Smith? 

A.  So  far  as  I  understand  their  teaching,  I  think  they  do  not. 

Q.  Don't  they?     What  do  you  mean  by  their  teaching? 

A.  I  mean  what  their  preachers  and  their  people  say. 

Q.  Please  name  them — some  of  them  whom  you  have  heard  preach 
that  doctrine. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  My  recollection  of  names  is  not  very  accurate.  I  think  Mr.  Be» 
Franklin  preached  that,  as  well  as  other  ministers  of  that  denomination. 
I  do  not  readily  recall  to  recollection  the  names  of  the  different  persons — 
I  am  unable  to  do  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Smith,  whether  or  not  you  have  ever  heard 
Benjamin  Franklin  say  that  in  any  of  his  preaching,  or  preach  the  doc- 
trine denying  the  three  personages  in  the  Godhead  ? 

A.  Not  in  terms. 

Q.  Not  in  terms? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  you  mean  to  imply  that  he 
did  in  some  other  way. 

A.  Only  impliedly  speaking.  I  think  he  said  in  his  preaching  that 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  its  operations,  was  a  separate  and  distinct  being ;  or,  at 
least,  his  preaching  gave  his  hearers  that  impression.  I  do  not  recollect 
the  statement  exactly,  but  the  statement  was  to  that  amount. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  what  do  you  say  to  this:  "The  revelation  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  is  no  more  clear  and  distinct  than  are  the 
different  offices  assumed  and  performed  by  these  glorious  and  ineffable 
three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe.  It  is  true,  so  far  as  unity  of 
design  and  concurrence  of  action  is  contemplated,  they  cooperate  in  every 
work  of  creation,  providence,  and  redemption.  Such  is  the  concurrence 
expressed  by  the  Messiah  in  these  words :  '  My  Father  worketh  hitherto, 
and  I  work ;'  '  I  and  my  Father  are  one ;'  '  Whatsoever  the  Father  doeth, 
the  Son  doeth  likewise :'  but  not  such  a  concurrence  as  annuls  personality, 
impairs  or  interferes  with  the  distinct  offices  of  each  in  the  salvation  of 
men"?  (Campbell and  Rice,  p.  6/6.)  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  what  fault  have 
you  to  find  with  that  doctrine  ?  Have  you  any  exceptions  to  take  to  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  Wherein  it  relates  to  Christians  and  the  ingrafted  mem- 
bers  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  of  course  there  is  no  fault — I  say  no. 

Q.  Now,  how  is  it  in  regard  to  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit?  You  have  stated  that  you  have  no  fault  to  find  with  the  foregoing 
statement  wherein  it  speaks  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Now,  as  to  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  I  will  ask  you  if  you 
have  any  fault  to  find  with  the  following  expression:  "I  would  not,  sir, 
value  at  the  price  of  a  single  mill  the  religion  of  any  man,  as  respects  the 
grand  affair  of  eternal  life,  whose  religion  is  not  begun,  carried  on,  and 
completed  by  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nay,  sir,  I  esteem 
it  the  peculiar  excellence  and  glory  of  our  religion,  that  it  is  spiritual;  that 
the  soul  of  a  man  is  quickened,  enlightened,  sanctified,  and  consoled  by 
the  indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  the  eternal  God.  But,  while 
avowing  these  my  convictions,  I  have  no  more  fellowship  with  those  false 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  159 

and  pernicious  theories  that  confound  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Father 
with  that  of  the  Son,  or  with  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  work  of  any 
of  these  awful  names  with  that  of  another;  or  which  represents  our  illu- 
mination, conversion,  and  sanctification  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  without 
the  knowledge,  belief,  and  obedience  of  the  gospel,  as  written  by  the  holy 
apostles  and  evangelists,  than  I  have  with  the  author  and  finisher  of  the 
book  of  Mormon  "  ?  (  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  6/6.)  What  do  you  say  to  that 
statement  ? 

A.  The  statement,  taken  alone,  is  unbiblical,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to 
ascertain. 

Q.  That  is,  so  far  as  the  personal  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  concerned, 
the  statement  is  unbiblical  ? 

A.  It  seems  to  denote  that. 

Q.  Only  the  words,  as  they  were  quoted,  do  as  a  matter  of  fact  convey 
unbtblical  doctrine ;  or  would  you  take  exception  to  the  distinction  made 
between  the  Father  and  Son? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  would,  because  nobody  denies  the 
personal  distinction  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  that  sense. 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Smith,  is  that  not  an  exceptionally  strong  state- 
ment of  the  personalty  of  the  three  personages  in  the  Godhead?  Is  not 
that  conception  of  the  Godhead  orthodox  ? 

A.  To  this  I  would  say:  Taken  alone,  without  any  additional  state- 
ment or  explanation — without  an  explanation  of  these  statements — I  say  it 
would  be. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  that  is  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church; 
what  do  you  say  to  it?  But  I  will  go  on:  "For  example,  the  Father 
sends  the  Son,  and  not  the  Son  the  Father.  The  Father  provides  a  body 
and  a  soul  for  his  Son,  and  not  the  Son  for  his  Father.  The  Son  offers  up 
that  body  and  soul  for  sin,  and  thus  expiates  it,  which  the  Father  does 
not,  but  accepts  it.  The  Father  and  the  Son  send  forth  the  Spirit,  and  not 
the  Spirit  either.  The  Spirit  now  advocates  Christ's  cause,  and  not  Christ 
his  own  cause.  The  Holy  Spirit  now  animates  the  church  with  his  pres- 
ence, and  not  Christ  himself.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  church,  while  th« 
Spirit  is  the  heart  of  it.  The  Father  originates  all,  the  Son  executes  all, 
the  Spirit  consummates  all.  Eternal  volition,  design,  and  mission  belong 
to  the  Father;  reconciliation  to  the  Son;  sanctification  to  the  Spirit." 
( Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  6/6.)  Now,  is  n't  that  sound  ? 

A.  The  last  three  expressions  are  not. 

Q.  "Eternal  violition,  design,  and  mission  belong  to  the  Father;  rec- 
onciliation to  the  Son ;  sanctification  to  the  Spirit "  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  those  statements  are  such  as  I  would  not  accept. 

Q.  Well,  now 


160  Our  Orthodox}'  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Just  those  statements  taken  alone. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  I  will  ask  you  if  the  Christian  Church  does  not 
believe  that  doctrine  and  teach  it  ? 

A.  That  does  not  agree  with  the  lectures  I  have  heard  made  by  the 
ministers  in  that  denomination.  I  must  answer  that  there  is  quite  a 
difference. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  does  not  the  Christian  Church  indorse  that  doc- 
trine, accepting  all  of  it? 

A.  I  am  not  able  to  say  as  to  that. 

Q.  Will  you  say  that  it  does  not  accept  it? 

A.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  they  do  not ;  but  so  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  gather  their  opinions  from  their  sermons  and  the  articles  which  I 
have  read,  and  from  the  press  under  their  control,  I  have  been  otherwise 
impressed  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  I  think  it  does  not  actually 
accept  that  doctrine  as  true. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  not  know  that  Alexander  Campbell  accepted 
that  doctrine? 

A.  Well,  there  is — well,  there  is  not  hardly 

Q.   Mr.  Smith,  that  is  Alexander  Campbell's  own  language. 

A.   But  culled  out. 

Q.  Is  that  a  matter  for  you  to  say  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  wait  and  I  will  give  you  a  statement  of  the  doctrine :  "  '  He 
has  saved  us,'  says  the  Apostle  Paul,  'by  the  bath  of  regeneration  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  he  poured  on  us  richly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Saviour;  that  being  justified  by  his  favor  [in  the  bath  of  re- 
generation], we  might  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal 
life.'  Thus,  and  not  by  works  of  righteousness,  he  has  saved  us.  Conse- 
quently, being  born  of  water  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  not 
works  of  merit  or  of  righteousness,  but  only  the  means  of  enjoyment. 
But  this  pouring  out  of  the  influence,  this  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
as  necessary  as  the  bath  of  regeneration  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and 
to  the  enjoyment  of  the  hope  of  heaven,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks.  In 
the  kingdom  into  which  we  are  born  of  water,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  the 
atmosphere  in  the  kingdom  of  nature ;  we  mean  that  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  as  necessary  to  the  tum  life,  as  the  atmosphere  is  to  our  an- 
imal life  in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regener- 
ation, God  our  Father  effects  by  the  word,  or  the  gospel  as  dictated  and 
confirmed  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  But  after  we  are  thus  begotten  and  born  l.y 
the  Spirit  of  God — after  our  new  birth — the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  on  us 
richly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour;  of  which  the  peace  of  mind,  the 
love,  the  joy,  and  the  hope  of  the  regenerate  is  full  proof;  for  these  are 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  i6r 

among  the  fruits  of  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  of  which  we  speak." 
( Christian  System,  p.  267.)  What  do  you  think  of  that  statement  ? 

A.  Oh!  yes,  that  is  scriptural;  I  have  no  objection  to  that;  it  is  script- 
ural and  orthodox.  Whenever  you  quote  from  the  Bible  of  course  we  will 
accept  that. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  if  we  were  to  take  forty,  or  fifty,  or  seventy-five 
members  of  your  own  Church,  how  many  of  them,  I  will  ask  you,  would 
define  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  you  do,  and  make  the  distinctions 
which  you  make? 

A.  Oh !  if  I  were  to  answer  that,  it  would  only  be  the  introduction  of 
my  opinion  into  this  testimony. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  pretend  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity? 

A.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  all  about  it,  but  there  is  a  distinction,  I 
think,  which  a  great  many  fail  to  make — there  are  a  great  many  who  fail 
to  comprehend  the  subject. 

Q,  But  Mr.  Campbell  claimed  in  his  writings  that  these  ineffable  rela- 
tions may  be  apprehended  by  nearly  all,  and  at  the  same  time  compre- 
hended by  none. 

A.  That  is  very  true. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  wish  this  jury  to  understand — do  you 
pretend  to  say — that  because  the  Christian  Church  may  not  believe  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  just  as  you  have  stated  it,  and  as  probably  three- 
fourths  of  your  own  people  do  not  believe  it,  the  denomination  is  not 
orthodox  ? 

A.  I  have  not  been  led,  as  I  said  before — I  have  not  been  led  to  con- 
clude that  it  is. 

Q.  If  it  believes  that  doctrine,  what  have  you  to  say  to  it  then  ? 

A.  This  particular  expression  which  you  have  pointed  out  may  have 
the  same  meaning — it  may  mean  substantially  the  same  thing — the  Church 
may  believe  these  theological  doctrines  just  as  they  have  been  expounded 
and  explained  by  the  counsel,  but  of  course  I  can  not  tell. 

Q.  And  you  say  these  forms  of  expression  are  mere  theories  ? 

A.  The  full  and  usual  meaning  of  the  expression  is  the  existence  of 
three  personages  in  the  Godhead. 

Q.  In  other  words,  they  speak  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  but  they  do 
not  believe  it.  Is  that  it  ? 

A.  They  seem  to  believe  the  main  features  to  a  great  extent  as  to  the 
formulated  part.  There  are  churches  that,  with  that  explanation  and  ex- 
pression of  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  receive  it — indeed  all  those 
churches  which  pretend  to  be  orthodox  believe  these  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity. 


162  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  is  not  that  statement  a  restatement  in  other  words  of 
the  definition  of  the  doctrine  as  it  is  found  in  the  Methodist  Discipline? 

A.  There  are  the  rules  which  are  found  in  all  our  church  disciplines. 

Q.  Is  a  church  that  believes  these  doctrines  orthodox  or  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  mean  that  a  church  that  believes  these  doctrines  is  or- 
thodox— I  mean  to  say  that  a  church  and  the  membership  of  a  church  that 
believe  these  doctrines,  and  what  I  have  said  about,  and  what  is  in  the 
Discipline,  I  would  accept  as  orthodox. 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  I  think  so  far  as  the  membership  of  the  Christian  Church  differ 
from  these  doctrines,  they  are  unsound.  A  man  is  unsound  if  he  impart  a 
certain  formulated  doctrine  and  that  doctrine  does  not  correspond  with  the 
doctrine  I  have  given  you;  in  other  words,  if  he  does  not  believe  in  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  he  is  unsound. 

Q.  Oh !  yes,  if  a  man  expects  to  be  orthodox,  he  must  believe  both 
the  unity  and  trinity  of  the  Godhead.  Now,  suppose  a  man  wants  to  be- 
come a  member  of  your  Church,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — if  he 
wants  to  be  admitted  into  your  Church — would  you  admit  him  without  a 
previous  change  of  heart? 

A.  He  should  believe  the  doctrine  pertaining  to  the  Trinity  as  it  has 
been  stated ;  then,  relying  upon  the  truth  of  his  statement  as  to  a  change 
of  heart,  of  course  I  would  admit  him  into  the  Church. 

Q.  You  would  read  the  Discipline  to  him,  and  question  him  on  that 
particular  phase  of  doctrine,  and  if  he  said  he  believed  it,  as  you  re- 
quested him  to  do,  you  would  admit  him  into  your  Church  and  call  him 
orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  so  far  as  that  branch  of  the  case  is  concerned. 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Smith,  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Discipline 
Is  a  definite  statement  of  the  doctrine  as  it  is.  Am  1  right? 

A.  Not  a  statement,  only  so  far  as  we  have  authorities  for  our  rules. 

Q.  I  know,  Mr.  Smith,  that  you  do  not  incorporate  all  the  theological 
rules,  but  you  incorporate  the  fundamental  principles  in  the  Discipline,  do 
you  not? 

A.  Oh !  certainly  ;  our  Discipline  as  I  understand  it  expresses  the  rules 
that  are  found  elsewhere. 

Q.  Not  a  succinct  explanation  of  the  truth,  but  sufficient  to  admit  a 
person  into  the  Church  as  orthodox? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  that  is  one  point  of  difference  between  the  Chris- 
tian Church  and  the  so-called  orthodox  churches  ?  What  is  another  that  you 
would  indicate. 

A.  The  next  point  that  occurs  to   me  is  this :     The  Christian  Church, 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  i6j 

or  the  so-called  Christian  Church,  does  not  correspond  with  the  other 
churches  in  their  teaching — in  their  teaching  that  Church  says  that  the 
sinner  must  save  himself — must  save  himself  by  his  own  voluntary  act,  and 
not  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit — and  not  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Q.  Do  you  testify  to  this  jury  that  that  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church? 

A.  It  is,  as  I  understand  it. 

Q.  What  writer  in  the  Christian  Church  has  ever  expressed  that  doc- 
trine ?  You  say  you  have  read  something  of  that. 

A.  I  can  not  now  turn  to  the  particular  passage,  or  cite  the  particular 
author  to  whom  I  refer,  more  than  to  the  preachers  or  ministers  to  whom 
I  have  listened  and  who  have  made  such  an  exposition  of  it.  And  I 
have,  too,  read  articles  in  their  journals  which  taught  the  doctrine  that 
the  sinner  is  influenced  by  the  Word  without  the  Spirit ;  that  is,  represent- 
ing the  Word  as  being  the  terms  or  means  of  Salvation.  But,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  the  sinner  is  furnished  with  the  means  to  reformation  and  repent- 
ance. ( We  recognize  the  divine  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  producing  this 
result,  that  the  sinner  must  have  this  application  of  the  Spirit  to  change 
him  to  a  new  life.  The  application  of  the  Spirit  gives  him  faith  and 
changes  him  to  a  new  life.)  Then  by  his  faith  he  resolves  to  do,  he  obeys 
the  commandments  of  God,  and  his  sins  are  stricken  out;  but  this  obedi- 
ence of  the  sinner  is  by  the  influence  of  the  truth.  As  I  understand  it,  he 
thus  obeys  the  commandments  and  turns  to  God  by  his  confession  and 
obedience.  As  I  understand  it,  it  is  under  the  influence  of  these  manifest- 
ations that  God  pardons  his  sins,  and  he  is  thereby  brought  into  Christian 
relationship,  is  strengthened  in  his  faith,  and  is  brought  under  the  direct 
influence  of  the  divine  manifestations — is  brought  into  communion  with 
God's  Spirit,  and  is  in  charge  of  the  Spirit  as  revealed  by  His  divine  will. 
This  is  what  I  understand  to  be  the  teaching  of  that  Church  through  what 
I  have  read.  I  do  not  claim  to  have  read  all  the  articles. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  tell  me  a  minister  whom  you  have  heard  preach  that 
doctrine. 

A.  Well,  I  have  heard  Mr.  Franklin  preach  that  doctrine. 

Q.   How  long  ago? 

A.   He  preached  it  in  Alexandria,  in  the  year  1878,  I  believe. 

Q.  Four  or  five  years  ago  ? 

A.  I  think  it  has  been  that  long  probably;  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  In  Alexandria,   Michigan  ? 

A.  In  Alexandria  in  this  State,  in  Madison  County. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  other  preacher  preach  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  What  did  you  say  ? 


164.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Chril  Courts. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  any  other  preacher  preach  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  another  one  also. 

Q.  Whom? 

A.  There  was  another  preacher  of  that  denomination  whom  I  heard 
preach  at  Alexandria  during  my  ministry  there.  I  had  a  conversation 

with  another  minister  of  that  denomination.  It  was  Mr. ,  the  preacher 

was  a  stranger  to  me ;  I  would  not  know  him  by  sight. 

Q.  Hopkins? 

A.  Hopkins,  Hopkins;  yes,  sir,  I  have  had  a  conversation  with  him 
upon  that  subject  since  I  heard  the  other  preacher,  and  I  remember  his 
conversation  upon  that  subject,  although  it  has  been  a  long  time. 

Q.  Well,  now,  what  articles  have  you  read  ? 

A.  I  believe  I  can  not  cite  the  articles  I  have  read — I  have  not  given 
so  much  attention  to  the  articles  as  the  reading — I  do  not  remember  the 
volumes  nor  the  author;  but  I  have  formed  that  opinion  from  their  minis- 
ters and  the  articles  which  I  have  read.  I  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
that  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Chapman  ? 

A.  Whom? 

Q.  You  heard  Mr.  Chapman  testify  upon  this  subject,  and  Mr.  Ed- 
wards, and  Mr.  Carpenter,  and  Mr.  Owen,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  In  part. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  heard  any  such  doctrine  as  that  to  which  you 
have  testified  to-day  in  those  testimonies? 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  heard  any  of  those  gentlemen  testify — I  do  not 
know — I  heard  a  part  of  their  testimony  upon  that  subject. 

Q.  Did  they  not  distinctly  state  that  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  oper- 
ates upon  the  heart  of  the  sinner  through  the  Word?  Did  they  not  dis- 
tinctly state  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  heart  of  a  sinner  to  be  influenced 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  order  for  him  to  become  a  true  Christian  ? 

A.  I  understood  these  gentlemen  to  testify  that  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  exerted  upon  the  heart  of  a  man  in  the  same  way  that  the 
truth  operates  upon  the  heart;  that  the  Spirit  operates  upon  the  hearts  of 
men  in  regard  to  their  conduct  in  the  same  way  that  the  truth  operates  and 
influences  their  feelings ;  that,  In  its  manifestations  upon  persons,  it  oper- 
ates by  the  same  rules  and  in  the  same  way  that  the  truth  operates  upon 
the  heart  of  the  sinner;  that  the  Spirit  would  have  no  efficacy  upon  the 
heart  but  for  the  operation  of  the  truth  upon  it :  that  it  could  not  exert 
any  influence  upon  the  heart  of  a  sinner  but  for  the  truth.  But  I  can  not 
express  this  influence  upon  the  heart  through  the  medium  of  the  truth  in 
other  words.  As  I  understand  them  to  testify,  the  Spirit  operates  through 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  165 

the  truth,  and  that  the  truth  operates  upon  the  conscience  by  the  manifest- 
ation of  the  Spirit  upon  the  conscience  and  judgment  of  the  sinner,  and 
in  consequence  of  this  influence  the  sinner  obeys  and  becomes  a  Christian. 
This  is  the  way  I  understand  them  to  testify. 

Q.  They  didn't  say  that,  did  they? 

A.  Oh!  no,  sir;  but  I  am  informed  that  they  expressed  it  in  other 
words.  From  what  I  gather,  I  take  that  to  be  their  teaching. 

Q.  Do  they  not  believe  and  definitely  state  that  the  Spirit  operates 
upon  the  hearts  ot  men,  and  dwells  in  the  hearts  of  Christians  ? 

A.  Through  the  truth,  and  through  it  only. 

Q.  Well,  now,  do  you  pretend  to  say  that  the  Spirit  operates  upon 
the  hearts  of  men  only  independent  of  the  truth — that  it  operates  upon 
your  own  heart  in  that  manner  ?  Do  you  say  that  the  Spirit  does  it  inde- 
pendent of  the  Word ;  that  it  has  no  connection  with  the  Word,  but  is 
independent  in  its  operations? 

A.  Through  the  Spirit  come  the  intuitions  of  the  Word ;  and  His 
abiding  presence  in  the  hearts  of  men  is  accompanied  by  the  Word.  In 
the  same  way  the  expression  of  the  Word  conveys  conviction  to  the  hearts 
of  men. 

Q.  Do  they  not  teach  that  the  Spirit  of  God  and  its  influence  live  and 
dwell  in  the  hearts  of  men  and  cause  the  incorruptible  seed  to  spring  up 
unto  eternal  life?  Let  me  read:  "There  yet  remains  another  school, 
which  never  speculatively  separates  the  Word  and  the  Spirit ;  which,  in 
every  case  of  conversion,  contemplates  them  as  cooperating ;  or,  which  is 
the  same  thing,  conceives  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  clothed  with  the  gospel 
motives  and  arguments — enlightening,  convincing,  persuading  sinners,  and 
thus  enabling  them  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come.  In  this  school,  con- 
version and  regeneration  are  terms  indicative  of  a  moral  or  spiritual 
change — of  a  change  accomplished  through  the  arguments,  the  light,  the 
love,  the  grace  of  God  expressed  and  revealed,  as  well  as  approved  by  the 
supernatural  attestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  believe,  and  teach, 
that  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickens,  and  that  the  Word  of  God — the  living 
Word — is  that  incorruptible  seed,  which,  when  planted  in  the  heart,  vege- 
tates, and  germinates,  and  grows,  and  fructifies  unto  eternal  life."  (Camp- 
bell and  Jfice,  p.  6/4.)  Is  not  that  a  correct  statement  of  the  Bible  doctrine 
upon  that  subject? 

A.  I  would  regard  that  as  being  somewhat  complex. 

Q.  Will  you  please  make  it  more  simple? 

A.  I  would  say  that  my  explanation  of  that  thought  is  this,  that  the 
Spirit  is  the  source  of  truth. 

Q.  You  certainly  do  not  interpret  it  correctly.  I  will  ask  you  to  give 
a  more  definite  expression  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  than  is  given  in 


166  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

the  few  words  I  have  read;  but  let  me  continue  the  paragraph:  "They 
hold  it  to  be  unscriptural,  irrational,  unphilosophic,  to  discriminate  be- 
tween spiritual  agency  and  instrumentality — between  what  the  Word, 
per  se,  or  the  Spirit,  per  se,  severally  does ;  as  though  they  were  two  inde- 
pendent, and  wholly  distinct  powers,  or  influences.  They  object  not  to 
the  cooperation  of  secondary  causes ;  of  various  subordinate  instrumental- 
ities ;  the  ministry  of  men  ;  the  ministry  of  angels  ;  the  doctrine  of  special 
providences;  but,  however,  whenever  the  Word  gets  into  the  heart — the 
spiritual  seed  into  the  moral  nature  of  man — it  as  naturally,  as  spontane- 
ously grows  there,  as  the  sound,  good  corn,  when  deposited  in  the  genial 
earth.  It  has  life  in  it;  and  is,  therefore,  sublimely  and  divinely  called 
•The  living  and  effectual  Word.'"  (  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  614.)  Now, 
sir,  I  will  ask  you  to  give  a  more  certain  and  definite  expression  of  the 
Spirit's  work  upon  the  moral  nature  of  man  than  is  thus  given  in  this 
paragraph. 

A.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  wish  me  to  state  what  effect  it  has  in  the 
conversion  of  the  soul  ? 

Q.  ( By  the  Court.)  The  counsel  asks  you  to  give  your  explanation  of 
the  operation. 

A.  Well,  I  will  endeavor  to  give  it  as  near  as  possible.  I  understand 
that  the  Spirit  is  sent  not  only  to  inspire  the  Word  of  truth,  but  also  when 
that  Word  of  truth  is  conveyed  to  the  sinner  and  he  is  influenced  by  the 
gospel,  it  manifests  itself  upon  the  conscience  rendering  it  susceptible  of 
the  influence  of  that  truth;  and  that  when  a  man  is  in  his  depraved  nature 
he  is  insusceptible  to  the  influence  of  the  truth — it  is  the  Spirit  that 
renders  the  mind,  and  soul,  and  heart  susceptible  to  the  influence  of  that 
truth ;  that  this  truth,  when  a  man  is  thus  influenced  by  the  Spirit,  oper- 
ates upon  the  mind  with  the  Spirit,  and  renders  his  soul  susceptible  and 
brings  him  to  obedience ;  and  that  by  these  influences  of  the  truth  and 
the  Spirit,  the  truth  operating  upon  the  sinner  through  the  direct  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  upon  the  soul  thus  explaining  the  Word,  he  is  brought 
into  communication  with  the  divine  Spirit. 

Q.  I  will  now  ask  you  to  state  to  the  jury  that  you  understand  that 
to  be  orthodox  doctrine. 

A.  I  understand  this  to  be  orthodox,  that  the  personage  of  the  Spirit 
operates  through  the  truth,  that  the  inspired  truth  thus  results  in  bringing 
the  sinner  into  fellowship,  and  that  he  is  kept  in  that  fellowship  through 
the  efficacy  and  the  direct  personal  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  soul 
and  heart. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  is  that  a  better  statement  than  what  you  say  the 
Christian  Church  believes  or  claims  to  believe?  It  is  a  correct  and  definite 
statement  to  say  that  the  Spirit  quickens,  is  it  not? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  i6j 

A.  Well,  that  depends  upon  the  word  quickens.  It  is  if  the  word  has 
its  ordinary  meaning — I  should  take  it  in  its  literal  sense. 

Q.  The  Christian  Church  believes  and  teaches,  "that  it  is  the  Spirit 
that  quickens,  and  that  the  Word  of  God — the  Living  Word — is  that  in- 
corruptible seed,  which,  when  planted  in  the  heart,  vegetates,  and  ger- 
minates, and  grows,  and  fructifies  unto  eternal  life."  Now,  don't  you 
think  that  that  statement  is  correct ;  do  n't  you  believe  it  is  a  correct 
assertion  ? 

A.  I  should  say  that  it  is  what  takes  place  through  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit  upon  the  heart  in  the  conversion — in  the  conversion  of  the 
Dinner. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Smith,  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  following  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  a  true  faith:  "No  new 
faculties  are  imparted — no  old  faculty  destroyed.  They  are  neither  more 
nor  less  in  number;  they  are  neither  better  nor  worse  in  kind.  Paul  the 
Apostle,  and  Saul  of  Tarsus,  are  the  same  person,  so  far  as  all  the  animal, 
intellectual,  and  moral  powers  are  concerned.  His  mental  and  physical 
temperaments  were  just  the  same  after  as  before  he  became  a  Christian. 
The  Spirit  of  God,  in  effecting  this  great  change,  does  not  violate,  meta- 
morphose, or  annihilate  any  power  or  faculty  of  the  man,  in  making  the 
saint.  He  merely  receives  new  ideas,  and  new  impressions,  and  undergoes 
a  great  moral  or  spiritual  change — so  that  he  becomes  alive  wherein  he 
was  dead,  and  dead  wherein  he  was  formerly  alive."  (Campbell  and  Rice, 
(>.  6/7.)  Again:  "Now,  as  faith  in  God  is  the  first  principle — the  soul- 
renewing  principle  of  religion;  as  it  is  the  regenerating,  justifying,  sancti- 
fying principle;  without  it,  it  is  impossible  to  be  acceptable  to  God.  With 
it,  a  man  is  a  son  of  Abraham,  a  son  of  God ;  an  heir  apparent  to  eternal 
life — an  everlasting  kingdom.  And  what  is  Christian  faith?  It  is  the  be- 
lief of  testimony.  It  is  a  persuasion  that  God  is  true ;  that  the  gospel  is 
divine ;  that  God  is  love ;  that  Christ's  death  is  the  sinner's  life.  It  is 
trust  in  God.  It  is  a  reliance  upon  his  truth,  his  faithfulness,  his  power. 
It  is  not  merely  a  cold  assent  to  the  truth,  to  testimony:  but  a  cordial, 
joyful  consent  to  it,  and  reception  of  it.  Still  it  is  dependent  on  testi- 
mony. No  testimony,  no  faith.  The  Spirit  of  God  gave  the  testimony 
first.  It  bore  witness  to  Jesus.  It  expected  no  faith  without  something 
to  believe.  Something  to  believe  is  always  presented  to  faith ;  and  that 
something  must  be  heard  before  it  can  be  believed;  for,  until  it  is  heard, 
it  is  as  though  it  were  not — a  nonentity.  But  it  is  not  enough,  that  it  be 
heard  by  the  outward  ear.  God  has  given  to  man  an  inward,  as  well  as 
an  outward  ear.  The  outward  recognizes  sounds  only;  the  inward  recog- 
nizes sense.  Faith  is,  therefore,  impossible  without  language ;  and,  con- 
•equently,  without  the  knowledge  of  language,  and  that  language  under- 


l68  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

stood.  It  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible,  without  language — intelligl 
ble  language."  (  Campbell  and  Rice,  pp.  618,  619.)  Now,  sir,  is  not  that 
a  correct  statement  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  gospel  produces  a  true 
faith? 

A.  The  statement  gives  the  whole  a  different  explanation ;  sometimes 
it  might  be  taken  as  including  the  works  generally  concerning  duties  in 
life,  and  sometimes  it  might  be  taken  as  including  the  direct  and  specific 
operations  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  and  the  influence  upon  the  mind  and 
heart ;  and  then  there  is 

Q.  You  do  n't  think  that  that  statement  is  enough  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  don't? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  an  article  upon  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now,  do  you  profess  to 
be  able  to  give  a  better  explanation  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
producing  a  true  faith  than  this  which  refers  the  production  of  this  end 
to  the  Spirit  through  the  gospel?  Or  do  you  think  that  that  is  a  "little 
complex"? 

A.  That  expression? 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  too  complex  to  be  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.  What  work  is  that  ?  I  think  that,  in  my  own  language,  I  would 
not  express  it  in  that  way.  I  think  the  doctrine,  as  it  is  expressed,  is  not 
sound  evangelical  doctrine.  I  believe  I  would  formulate  the  expression 
differently — as  it  is  first  given,  it  is  unbiblical;  of  course  it  is  in  the 
expression. 

Q.  You  think  it  is  not  correct? 

A.  Of  course  that  is  the  explanation  I  would  give  from  what  I  have 
read. 

Q.  And  you  think  it  is  "too  complex"? 

A.  Well,  sir,  in  the  main  points,  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  You  think  it  is  "  somewhat  complex,"  and  that  it  is  hardly  a  suf- 
ficiently definite  statement? 

A.  It  might  be  understood  as  being  insufficient  in  one  sense.  I  think, 
in  a  certain  signification,  it  is  too  complex.  I  suppose,  if  they  understood 
it  more  perfectly  themselves,  these  persons  might  define  the  expression  of 
their  faith  upon  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  you  have  been  wrestling  with  orthodoxy,  or  right  doc- 
trine as  you  call  it.  I  will  now  seriously  ask  you  if  you  think  this  doc- 
trine, as  you  have  explained  it,  can  be  understood  by  the  several  members 
of  a  church — if  a  common  man  can  understand  it.  Do  you  think  a  majority 
of  the  members — do  you  think  that  you  could  find  one  in  a  hundred  of  the 
laymen  who  can  even  state  that  doctrine,  that  orthodox  doctrine? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  169 

A.  Well,  we  do  not  expect  the  body  of  the  laymen  to  do  it. 

Q.  Then  a  common  man,  or  a  layman,  can  not  understand  it?  Do  you 
think  the  common  people,  the  laymen,  can  understand  such  doctrine? 

A.  Oh !  it  is  only  the  definite  points  of  orthodoxy — only  the  definite 
points  are  aimed  to  be  understood  by  the  common  mind. 

Q.  Now,  in  connection  with  the  statement  which  you  have  given  of 
what  you  conceive  to  be  orthodox,  I  want  you  to  answer  me  this :  Is  it 
necessary  for  a  person  to  conceive  the  different  points  of  orthodoxy,  those 
points  of  orthodoxy  which  you  have  made  in  your  statement  of  the  prin- 
ciples involved  in  your  different  answers,  in  order  that  he  become  a  Chris- 
tian and  a  member  of  the  church ;  is  it  necessary  for  a  man  to  be  capable 
of  comprehending  all  the  principles  and  differences,  all  the  distinctions  of 
the  theory  of  orthodoxy,  which  you  have  made — is  it  necessary  to  under- 
stand all  these  distinctions  of  orthodoxy  and  properly  comprehend  them  in 
order  to  become  a  Christian  ? 

A.  I  think,  to  a  certain  degree,  a  Christian  should  understand  them  to 
have  faith  in  them. 

Q.  Then,  if  he  is  to  comprehend  and  understand  all  these  things,  the 
doctrine  is  not  so  plain  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  may  not  err 
therein? 

A.  It  is  so  plain  that  a  man  may  understand  it. 

Q.  The  Bible  says:  "And  an  highway  shall  be  there,  and  a  way,  and 
it  shall  be  called,  The  way  of  holiness ;  the  unclean  shall  not  pass  over  it ; 
but  it  shall  be  for  those:  the  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall  not  err 
therein."  (Isaiah  xxxv.  8.) 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  my  answer  implies  what  your  question 
involves. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  I  ask  you  if  the  way  is  as  plain  as  that  ?  Do  you  say 
that  the  New  Testament  is  not  a  guide  for  every  person,  laymen  or  no  lay- 
man ;  that  every  one  may  not  read  it  and  be  profited  by  it,  indeed  that 
every  one  may  not  obtain  thereby  the  way  to  eternal  life? 

A.  My  impression  is  that,  in  the  main,  it  can  be  understood — perhaps 
not  all  the  rules  and  theories  that  are  necessary  to  orthodoxy,  yet  the  the- 
ories in  the  main  should  be  understood ;  but  all  the  theological  expositions 
would  not  necessarily  have  to  be  understood.  Many  persons  require  in- 
struction upon  those  points — that  is  what  I  mean. 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Smith,  a  denomination  of  Christians  can  not  be  ortho- 
dox until  it  understands  the  right  doctrine.  Which  one  of  all  the  denom- 
inations is  orthodox,  for  they  all  differ  the  one  from  the  other?  You  say 
that  it  must  have  an  understanding  of  all  these  distinctions,  and  accept 
them,  to  be  orthodox ;  which  one  does  ?  And  the  laymen  of  the  congre- 
gation must  understand  and  accept  these  things  ? 


170  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  do  not  say  that  every  layman  must  understand  these  things  to 
that  he  can  give  a  complete  interpretation  of  them. 

Q.  How  is  this :  The  Bible  says  that  the  way  is  so  plain  that  a  fool 
shall  not  err  therein;  but  what  you  say  is  orthodox  doctrine  is  so  intricate 
and  complex  that  even  the  wisest  men  are  puzzled  to  understand  it,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  common  man  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  said  it  was  so  complex  that  it  required  an  expla- 
nation, and  that  a  common  layman  can  not  understand  it.  The  main  dis- 
tinction upon  the  subject  of  orthodoxy,  a  common  man  can  understand — 
that  is,  the  main  questions  may  be  understood  by  the  common  man.  How 
is  that  ? 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  a  mere  common  man  can  not  under- 
stand the  doctrine  of  orthodoxy,  so  as  to  have  a  clear  understanding  of  it. 
Now,  I  ask  you,  do  you  want  now  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  a  lay- 
man can  understand  and  comprehend  it  fully  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  making  the  statement.  I  may  possibly  have 
said  that  only  the  preachers  might  comprehend  it.  I  meant  it  to  be  under- 
stood in  that  way — that  is  the  way  I  understand  it.  Now,  I  think  this  is 
sufficient  to  define  orthodoxy  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes  upon  the  sub- 
ject. In  relation  to  the  fact  that  in  the  conversion  of  an  ordinary  man 
he  can  not  understand  and  comprehend  the  terms  and  expressions  of  or- 
thodoxy, that  the  common  man  is  not  able  to  understood  it,  or,  as  you  be- 
fore said,  the  wayfaring  man  can  not  comprehend  it,  I  would  remark  that 
the  standard  of  orthodoxy — or  at  least  what  I  mean  to  say  is  the  standard  of 
orthodoxy  is  not  to  be  so  estimated.  What  we  teach  is  this,  that  a  man 
may  understand  the  fundamental  features,  although  he  be  not  a  cultured 
man.  Any  one  who  is  able  to  understand  the  source  of  truth  is  able  to 
understand  it.  If  we  are  to  estimate  orthodoxy  by  what  a  certain  member 
is  able  to  comprehend,  we  can  hardly  have  the  truth  in  the  highest  sense. 
We  might  as  well  try  to  have  the  truth  to  conform  to  a  man's  capabilities 
who  is  not  able  to  understand  truth  in  all  its  phases.  I  take  it  that  it 
would  still  remain  truth ;  and  so  it  is  not  necessary  to  believe  in  all  the 
truth  in  order  to  be  orthodox.  A  person  may  be  orthodox  in  the  substan- 
tial doctrines,  and  yet  not  understand  nor  be  able  to  define  all  the  princi- 
ples of  orthodoxy. 

Q.  On  that  ground,  can  't  you  consent  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church — on  the  ground  that  it  has  some  of  the  principles  of  ortho- 
doxy? But  what  are  the  true  sources  of  truth  of  which  you  speak? 

A.  In  regard  to  the  salvation  of  a  man's  soul  ? 

Q.  Of  course. 

A.  God  himself  is  the  source  of  truth.  He  has  given  men  His  reve- 
lation of  the  truth  in  the  Bible  by  his  Holy  Spirit  and  by  his  Son. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  That  men  may  find  out  what  truth  i»? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  not  sufficient  to  in* 
form  a  common  man  what  the  truth  is  without  extra  help? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  testify  so,  nor  do  I  wish  to  be  so  understood. 

Q.  On  the  contrary,  do  you  now  say  that  the  Bible  is  sufficient  for  the 
instruction  of  any  man  who  seeks  the  true  doctrine,  or  who  will  try  to  find 
out  what  the  truth  is? 

A.  I  will  answer  that  by  saying,  the  Bible  is  the  same  to  all  mankind, 
it  is  the  expression  of  the  truth. 

Q.  But  the  question  I  asked  you  was  this,  and  will  you  have  the  kind- 
ness to  confine  your  answer  to  the  question:  Do  you  now  say  that  the 
Bible  is  a  sufficient  aid  to  any  man  who  has  a  desire  to  seek  the  truth,  and 
that  if  he  will  read  the  Bible  it  will  direct  him  in  the  right  way  ? 

A.  Do  you  wish  him  to  be  his  own  guide  first? 

Q.  I  speak  of  the  Bible  truths  as  they  are  taught  in  the  Bible.  I 
meant  to  be  understood  as  asking  you  if  it  is  sufficient  to  direct  him  in  the 
right  way — the  Bible  itself. 

A.  The  question  is  hardly  susceptible  of  a  correct  and  full  answer — 
not  by  the  answer  of  yes  or  no. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  answer  it  as  you  please,  and  then  give  the  additional 
explanation. 

A.  I  would  say,  yes,  sir,  it  is ;  that  is,  the  conditions  are  all  sufficient 
for  man's  salvation.  It  is  also  true  that  the  instruction  in  relation  to  the 
Bible — the  instruction  drawn  from  the  Bible  by  persons  commanded  to  in- 
quire into  and  study  the  Bible,  or  rather  to  draw  the  correct  faith  from  it 
and  give  it  to  the  Christian  that  it  may  be  expounded  to  mankind  by 
preaching,  and  that  we  may  be  able  to  teach  and  influence  mankind  by  the 
Word  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  thus  obey  the  commission  given 
to  the  evangelists  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  by  these  labors  to  give  to  the 
church,  to  the  sinner,  and  to  the  Christian  the  truth,  that  they  may  be 
controlled  by  the  proper  influence — it  is  true  that  all  this  teaching  must  be 
drawn  from  the  Bible,  that  the  Bible  must  be  the  source  of  instruction. 

Q.   Do  you  say  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  Bible  interpreted  ? 

A.  Necessary  to  have  it  interpreted  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Ordinarily,  in  order  that  all  may  concur  in  the  truth,  the  instruc- 
tion is  furnished  them. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  say  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  instruction  in 
the  truths  of  the  Bible  when  one  has  access  to  the  Bible  himself?  On  the 
contrary,  is  not  the  Bible  so  plain  to  the  common  understanding  that,  if  a 
man  will  read  it  carefully,  it  will  be  to  him  a  perfect  guide  into  the  right 
way? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  will  deny  that  to  be  the  case.  A  person  may  need  instruction 
upon  certain  matters.  For  instance :  when  the  Bible  speaks  of  Philip  and 
the  Eunuch  we  are  told  that  the  Spirit  commanded  Philip  to  join  the 
Eunuch  as  he  was  riding  along  in  his  chariot  reading  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  for  it  would  be  necessary  that  he  should  have  some  teaching 
upon  the  subject  upon  which  he  was  reading.  It  was  necessary  that  this 
inquirer  be  furnished  with  some  means  of  understanding  when  he  was  read- 
ing the  word  of  God ;  and  so  Philip  was  sent. 

Q.  But  the  Eunuch  did  not  have  access  to  all  the  Bible — the  New  Tes- 
tament was  not  yet  written.  Philip  only  supplied  the  information  which 
the  New  Testament  will  now  do ;  he  gave  by  inspiration  on  that  occasion 
what  the  New  Testament  now  supplies.  Then  the  Scriptures  were  imper- 
fect, for  they  were  not  complete ;  they  are  now  complete,  and,  therefore, 
perfect,  and  if  they  are  perfect  they  ought  to  be  a  perfect  guide  unto  eternal 
life — ought  they  not? 

A.  It  would  be  the  same,  any  way. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  want  this  jury  to  understand  you  to  say  that 
a  soul  must  be  lost  because  it  does  not  have  a  minister  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures  to  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  does  not  follow. 

Q.  Do  you  want  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  sufficient  guide  for  a 
person  who  is  able  to  read  and  understand ;  that  a  responsible  person  can 
not  find  out  the  truth  in  that  Bible  without  aid  from  other  persons? 

A.  I  would  not  say  that  a  person  will  be  lost  because  he  is  not  sup- 
plied with  a  teacher  in  the  Word  of  God.  A  person  will  not  be  lost  for 
that  reason  ;  but  he  may  have  need  of  instruction  in  the  essential  principles 
of  the  gospel  that,  so  far  as  faith  is  concerned,  he  may  have  faith  in  its 
statements  and  requirements.  The  province  of  a  minister  is  to  furnish 
men  and  members  of  the  church  the  right  doctrine.  Now,  that  is  the 
reason  why  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  teacher. 

Q.  There  is  no  doubt  that  teachers  are  useful,  but  are  they  necessary 
with  the  Bible  in  one's  own  hand? 

A.  Through  preaching  any  person  who  is  deprived  of  the  use  of  a  book 
is  enabled  to  become  informed  and  acquainted  with  the  questions  which  it 
discusses. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  will  you  give  a  more  complete  doctrine  than  that  in 
the  Bible 

A.  Did  you  ask  me  to  announce  a  more  complete  doctrine? 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  is  there  a  more  complete  doctrine  than  that  which  is 
found  in  the  Bible? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  believe  that  "All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works  "  ? 

A.  That  is  correct. 

Q.  That  is  good  doctrine  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  consider  that  good  doctrine? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  correct  and  I  believe  it,  it  is  in  accordance  with 
all  the  points  I  have  stated. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  mean  to  receive  that  as  orthodox  ? 

A.  I  believe  that  doctrine,  I  believe  that 

Q.  And  you  accept  it  ? 

A.  I  concur  with  that,  and  I  think  it  is  orthodox,  of  course. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  if  the  Bible  is  sufficient  to  enlighten  a  man  as  to  salva- 
tion, and  to  enable  him  to  find  the  way  to  eternal  life  and  to  keep  him  in 
it,  what  becomes  of  the  necessity  of  believing  that  doctrine  which  you 
have  testified  to  as  necessary  to  orthodoxy,  that  of  the  miraculous  impact 
of  the  personal  Spirit  upon  the  soul  to  change  the  nature  of  a  man  ? 

A.  Sir? 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  you  have  given  two  points  upon  which  you  think 
the  Christian  Church  is  not  orthodox.  Will  you  now  please  state  all  of 
the  points  upon  which  you  think  this  Church  is  not  orthodox?  But  I  will 
ask  you  if  you  think  all  the  churches  concur  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  as  you  have  stated  it? 

A.  So  far  as  I  know.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  only  from  what  I 
have  heard  members  of  the  different  denominations  say.  There  may  be 
persons  who  are  unsound  upon  this  as  well  as  upon  other  principles,  or 
subjects,  or  belief;  but  I  don't  know,  however. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  if  a  person  be  right  so  far  as  his  doctrine  is  concerned 
in  the  main,  do  you  make  a  test  of  the  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity as  you  have  expounded  it?  I  desire  you  to  state  to  the  jury,  in  regard 
to  keeping  members  in  the  Church,  if  one  be  right  in  other  things,  whether 
or  not  he  is  to  be  required  to  accept  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  as  you  have  stated  them. 

A.  I  frequently  do  so,  so  far  as  I  think  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  one's 
belief  upon  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  you  may  now  state  what  other  doctrine  or  belief  is  held 
by  the  Christian  Church,  which  you  regard  as  not  being  orthodox — state 
it,  if  you  please. 

A.  The  belief  which  I  understand  them  to  hold  in  relation  to  the  doc- 
trine of  human  depravity  is  an  additional  one. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church 
upon  that  subject? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  understand  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church  to  be  that  the 
human  race  is  not,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  so  bereft  of  right- 
eousness and  so  debased  in  its  moral  condition  but  that  men  may  renew 
their  life  without  the  supernatural  agency  in  their  conversion ;  that  by  the 
effect  of  the  fall,  through  death  and  its  circumstances  and  relations, 
Adam's  condemnation  in  a  certain  sense  has  come  upon  the  human  race, 
and  in  consequence  any  one  is  liable  to  sin,  but  that  this  condemnation 
does  not  extend  to  the  perversion  of  the  moral  nature  nor  that  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  moral  nature  is  derived  hereditarily  from  the  forefathers. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  understand  the  Christian  Church  to  reject  the 
fall  of  Adam  and  his  condemnation  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  that  sense. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  that  Church  to  teach  any  more  than  that  by 
the  sin  of  Adam  the  human  race  is  condemned  ? 

A.  I  understand  that  Church  to  teach  that  by  Adam's  sin  men  are 
condemned  to  death;  but  that  does  not  cover  the  ground.  It  is  to  that 
part  of  the  question  to  which  I  referred. 

Q.  Do  you  not  understand  the  Christian  Church  to  believe  that  it  is 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  through  the  Word  of  God — through 
the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
men  may  be  led  to  repentance  and  to  become  Christians? 

A.  I  understand  that  it  teaches  that,  in  consequence  of  the  atonement, 
a  man  may  be  reconciled  and  brought  into  relation  with  God ;  but  that  a 
person  is  not  contaminated  by  hereditary  sin,  that  he  is  not  in  a  state  of 
depravity,  as  I  would  regard  it. 

Q.  That  is  your  idea,  is  it :  not  that  the  Church  does  not  believe 
that  man  is  depraved  in  his  nature,  but  that  it  rejects  the  supernatural 
agency  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  that  is  not  the  idea.  It  is  this,  that  the  supernatural 
agency  is  required  for  the  depraved  nature. 

Q.  What  agency  that  is  supernatural  do  orthodox  denominations,  so- 
called,  believe  in  besides  the  agencies  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  heart  in  connection  with  the  Word 
of  God  ? 

A.  I  think  your  statement  does  not  permit  of  an  explanation. 

Q.  Put  it  just  as  you  understand  it.     Answer  the  question. 

A.  In  what  sense  ? 

Q.  It  is  certainly  plain  enough;  you  can  consider  the  questions  just 
as  you  understand  them.  Here  is  the  question:  "What  agency  that  is 
supernatural  do  orthodox  denominations,  so-called,  believe  in  besides  the 
agencies  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  heart  in  connection  with  the  Word  of  God?" 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  if 5 

A.  For  one,  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  I  understand  to 
be  promised — that  direct  agency  or  energy  that  is  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  soul :  so  the  renewing  influence  is  a  condition  of  the  atonement.  I 
have  already  made  an  explanation  of  that  statement.  The  whole  Scriptures 
teach  us  that  the  stone  that  the  builders  rejected  has  come  to  be  the  chief 
corner. 

Q.  Then  this  direct  impact  supernatural  agency  upheaving  and  turn- 
ing upside  down  the  moral  nature  of  man  is  the  chief  corner  of  orthodoxy, 
is  it  ?  When  you  speak  of  the  supernatural  agency,  believed  in  by  ortho- 
dox denominations,  is  it  what  I  have  just  stated  to  you? 

A.  The  only  answer  I  would  give  upon  the  subject  of  divine  agency 
is,  that  I  regard  it  as  being  necessary  to  a  recognized  orthodox  faith. 
However,  I  would  make  the  explanation  that  it  must  be  guarded  against 
in  explaining  the  influence — it  might  be  explained  to  be  something  else. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  that  influence,  Mr.  Smith  ? 

A.  What  do  you  say? 

Q.  What  do  you  undarstand  to  be  that  influence? 

A.  I  understand  it  to  be  that  agency  that  operates  upon  the  heart  of  a 
man  in  his  conversion. 

Q.  Well,  now,  using  it  in  that  sense,  what  do  you  say  to  my  question  '•* 

A.  I  would  say  that  it  is  not  sufficient. 

Q.  That  is  not  answering  my  question.  My  question  was :  "What 
agency  that  is  supernatural  do  orthodox  denominations,  so-called,  believe 
in  besides  the  agencies  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  heart  in  connection  with  the  Word  of  God?" 

A.  I  do  not  understand  your  question. 

Q.  What  other  supernatural  agency  do  the  orthodox  denominations 
believe  in,  in  the  conversion  of  persons,  other  than  those  I  have  named  ? 

A.  Not  any  other. 

Q.  Now,  we  will  take  your  definition — I  have  accepted  your  defini- 
tion— is  there  any  other  ? 

A.  I  said,  taking  the  correct  view  of  that  definition,  it  is  sufficient. 
The  Scriptures,  and  the  orthodox  teaching,  assert  that  that  influence  is  ex- 
erted in  the  salvation  of  a  soul. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  I  asked  you  what  other  influence  there  is ;  will  you 
please  state  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  say  that  there  is  any  other  influence  except  the  Word 
of  ^od  and  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  is  not  any  other  influence. 

Q.  Now,  take  it  as  you  say:  you  spoice  about  the  supernatural  agency  7 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


176  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  other  supernatural  agency  there  is  believed  in. 

A.  There  is  not  any  other  agency,  except  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
connection  with  the  blood  of  the  Saviour.  My  understanding  is,  that  it  is 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  was  promised.  The  word  "influence" 
might  require  a  definition.  Taking  it  alone,  without  its  safeguards,  the 
term  " agency "  might  mean  more  than  "influence."  There  are  revealed 
energies  or  powers  requiring  it  to  mean  more  that  the  word  "influence." 
Taking  it  from  that  standpoint,  and  in  that  sense,  the  word  might  mean, 
and  be  understood  to  mean  more. 

Q.  Then  you  say  the  word  is  used  differently  than  in  its  common 
tense,  do  you  ? 

A.  The  word  "influence"  is  not  the  word  I  would  use. 

Q.  I  put  this  question  to  you :  Has  any  one  ever  heard  the  word  in- 
fluence used  to  mean  something  else? 

A.  That  is  only  an  exception — I  have  answered  you  that  already.  I 
do  not  regard  the  word  "influence  "as  expressing  the  same  as  the  term 
"divine  energy;"  and  that  is  requisite. 

Q.  What  word  will  express  it,  Mr.  Smith? 

A.  What  word  instead  of  the  word  influence  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Well,  some  such  term  as  "  renewing  energy." 

Q.  Renewing  energy.  Well,  then,  putting  it  in  that  way,  what  super- 
natural agency  is  there  that  orthodox  denominations  believe  in  other  than 
the  atoning  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  "  renewing  energy"  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Word  of  God? 

A.  I  think  that  that  is  what  is  promised.  The  atonement  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  to  save  men,  or  procure  their  salvation.  It  affects  men's  relation, 
regenerates  the  soul,  and  changes  the  spiritual  condition.  It  thus  pro- 
cures pardon,  because  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanses  from  all  sin.  It  is 

Q.  What  has  that  to  do  with  the  supernatural  agency  ?  I  am  trying 
to  find  out  that. 

A.  The  supernatural  agency,  or  the  renewing  energy,  of  the  Holy 
Spirit? 

.  Q.  If  a  man  believe  in  that,  is  he  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Now  do  you  say  that  the  Christian  Church  does  not  be- 
lieve in  the  renewing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  the  teaching  of  that  Church  to  mean  that  the 
soul  is  renewed. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  does  or  does  not,  as  a  Church? 

A.  If  it  does,  a  different  term  is  used  in  teaching  it  than  the  word  I 
have  used. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  iff 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  as  taught 
•ut  there  at  Salem  on  the  Haw-Patch  ? 

A.  Only  just  so  far  as  I  have  investigated  its  faith  and  doctrines.  I 
understand  it  to  be  taught  by  its  preachers  that  the  word  "  conversion  " 
does  not  mean  the  exercise  of  the  renewing  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  soul ;  that  it  is  only  the  operation  of  the  revelation  which  God  has 
given,  and  not  the  exercise  of  the  renewing  energy  of  the  Spirit. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  that  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  do  you  ? 

A.  Sir? 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  they  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  human 
depravity? 

A.  I  understand  the  members  of  that  Church  to  deny  the  doctrine  of 
human  depravity,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have  denned  it — in  the  sense  in 
which  men  are  involved  in  the  extraordinary  circumstances  and  relations 
of  the  fall.  What  I  understand  to  be  orthodox  teaching  in  regard  to  hu- 
man depravity  is  this:  That  the  corrupt  and  perverted  condition  of  the 
moral  faculties  of  the  soul  comes  through  hereditary  transmission  from  the 
fall  of  the  race,  through  parent  to  child,  the  same  as  the  other  qualities  of 
our  parents  are  transmitted;  and  that  it  is  this  hereditary  perversion  and 
corruption  of  the  moral  nature  that  requires  the  renewing  energy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Q.  If  perversion  and  corruption  of  the  moral  nature  is  transmitted 
by  hereditary  descent,  and  if  it  require  the  renewing  energy  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  transform  this  hereditary  corruption  and  perverted  moral  nature — • 
if  no  power  short  of  the  supernatural,  miraculous  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  can  do  this — why  did  not  the  Holy  Ghost  lay  right  hold  of  Adam 
and  change  his  moral  nature,  so  that  all  his  descendants  might  have  had 
transmitted  hereditarily  to  them,  instead  of  a  perverted  and  corrupt  one, 
a  pure  and  correct  moral  nature?  The  work  would  have  been  a  much 
smaller  one,  and  would  have  been  just  as  effectual  as  the  one  which  the 
Spirit  now  has  on  his  hands,  according  to  your  statement  of  orthodox  doc- 
trine upon  this  point. 

A.  Sir? 

Q.  What  other  doctrine,  held  by  the  Christian  Church,  can  you  desig- 
nate that  is  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  What  other  doctrine? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Another  doctrine  is  this:  It  is  taught,  as  I  have  been  led  to  un- 
derstand it,  that  regeneration  and  baptism  by  immersion  are  one  and  the 
tame  thing,  being  so  intimately  related  that  they  can  not  be  separated  one 
from  the  other — that  baptism  by  immersion  is  regeneration. 


ij8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  understand  that  this  Church  holds  a  person  can 
not  be  saved  without  baptism  by  immersion? 

A.  I  understand  that  Church  to  hold,  and  I  would  direct  my  remarks 
to  this  one  point,  that  being  born  again  is  to  be  baptized  by  immersion, 
and  that  this  does  not  apply  to  a  person  in  any  other  sense. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  is  it  not  true  that  the  Methodist  Church,  and  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  and  the  other  churches,  hold,  as  a  part  of  their  doctrine, 
that  baptism  is  one  of  the  commandments  to  be  obeyed  ? 

A.  Certainly,  baptism  is  a  commandment. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  any  of  these  will  admit  a  person  into  their 
churches  without  baptism? 

A.   I  did  not  hear  every  word  distinctly. 

Q.  I  asked  you  if  the  Methodist  Church,  or  any  of  the  churches — the 
so-called  orthodox  denominations — will  admit  persons  to  become  members 
without  baptism  ? 

A.  That  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  membership.  I  understand  the 
Methodist  Churches  do ;  and  especially  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
I  can  speak  particularly  for  it — requires  baptism  as  one  of  the  conditions  of 
admission  to  its  membership. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Smith,  if  orthodox  denominations  do  not  teach 
that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation  ? 

A.  In  what  sense  ? 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  there  can  be  no  different  senses.  Now,  then,  I  will 
repeat  the  question :  Do  they  not  teach  that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion? 

A.  If  I  must  say  yes  or  no,  I  say  no. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  if  that  is  not  one  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church?  Here  are  the  words:  "My  church  teaches  that  baptism  is 
necessary  to  salvation." 

A.  What  authority  have  you  there  ? 

Q.  To  the  Lutheran  Church,  sir ;  what  do  you  say  ? 

A.  What  do  you  ask  in  regard  to  that? 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  the  Lutheran  Church  does  not  teach  that  doctrine  in 
this  very  language:  "My  church  teaches  that  baptism  is  necessary  to 
salvation"? 

A.  I  have  never  had  any  occasion  to  refer  to  the  articles  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church  upon  that  subject,  so  I  am  unable  to  speak  upon  that  unless 
you  will  permit  me  to  state  what  the  ministers  say  in  regard  to  it — I  can 
speak  understandingly  with  regard  to  the  ministers  of  the  Lutheran 
Church. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  if  the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  hold  that 
baptism  is  a  commandment  of  the  New  Testament,  ordained  originally  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  commission? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  say  that  the  sinful  soul  is  given  redemption  and  remission  of  sins 
through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  command  of  Christ  to  be  bap- 
tized for  the  remission  of  sins  as  promised  in  His  truth — in  His  Word. 

Q.  So,  then,  that  doctrine  is  taught  ? 

A.   Yes,  sir;  I  so  understand  it. 

Q.  Then,  is  that  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.  I  have  never  heard  of  a  person  putting  the  test  of  orthodoxy  upon 
that  subject. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  your  own  Church  does  not  teach  that  doctrine  ? 
Does  not  your  own  Church  teach  that  "except  a  man  be  born  of  water, 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  "  ? 

A.  We  teach  that,  word  for  word. 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A.  That  is  Scripture,  and  it  is  accepted,  of  course,  by  the  Methodist 
Church.  We  do  not  accept  every  possible  interpretation  that  might  be 
given  it — not  every  interpretation  that  might  be  put  upon  the  words. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  if  a  person  were  to  apply  to  your  Church  for  member- 
ship, and  he  would  refuse  to  be  baptized,  would  he  be  received  into  the 
Church  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  the  Christian  Church  to  claim  anything  more 
in  its  teaching  upon  this  subject  than  "he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  disbelieveth  shall  be  condemned "?  Do  you 
understand  the  Church  to  teach  anything  more  than  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  it? 

A.  That  baptism  carries  with  it  a  saving  efficacy. 

Q.  That  what  ? 

A.  That  it  has  a  saving  efficacy, 

Q.  What  is  that  ? 

A.  That  baptism  carries  with  it  a  saving  efficacy — that  there  is  a  sav- 
ing efficacy  in  baptism. 

Q.  What  representative  men  of  the  Christian  Church  ever  taught  that  ? 

A.  All  that  I  have  ever  heard  preach  upon  the  subject  of  baptism, 
without  any  exception,  have  conveyed  that  idea  to  me  upon  the  question. 

Q.   Do  n't  you  know  that  Mr.  Campbell  did  not  teach  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  that. 

Q.  Do  n't  you  know  that  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice, 
said:  "You  have  heard  me  say  here  ( and  the  whole  country  may  have 
read  it  and  heard  it  many  a  time),  that  a  seven-fold  immersion  in  the  river 
Jordan,  or  any  other  water,  without  a  previous  change  of  heart,  "will  avail 
nothing,  without  a  genuine  faith  and  penitence.  Nor  would  most  strict 


i8o  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

conformity  to  all  the  forms  and  usages  of  the  most  perfect  church  order ; 
the  most  exact  observance  of  all  the  ordinances,  without  personal  faith, 
piety,  and  moral  righteousness — without  a  new  heart,  hallowed  lips,  and  a 
holy  life,  profit  any  man  in  reference  to  eternal  salvation."  (  Campbell  and 
Rice, p.  678.)  Again:  "While  we  regard  immersion,  or  Christian  bap- 
tism, as  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  useful  institution,  we  neither  disparage, 
nor  underrate,  a  new  heart,  repentance,  or  faith ;  nay,  we  teach  with  great 
clearness  and  definiteness,  that,  unpreceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  it  is 
of  no  value  whatsoever.  These  two  constitute  a  change  of  heart,  a  mental 
conversion ;  for  all  believing  penitents  have  a  new  heart,  and  are  prepared 
for  being  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  555.) 
Again,  Mr.  Campbell  says:  "The  outward  act,  then,  is  but  the  symbol  of 
the  transition,  inward  and  spiritual,  by  which  our  souls  are  bathed  in  that 
ocean  of  love,  which  purifies  our  persons,  and  makes  them  one  with  the 
Lord.  Without  this,  being  born  of  water,  or  being  connected  with  a 
church,  is  nothing — worse  than  nothing.  Hence,  without  previous  knowl- 
edge, faith,  and  repentance,  immersion  into  the  name,  etc.,  is  a  mere  out- 
ward and  unprofitable  ceremony.  Hence  my  opposition  to  infant  baptism ; 
and  hence  my  opposition  to  adult  baptism,  without  a  previous  knowledge 
of  the  gospel."  (Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  493.) 

A.  If  I  understand  his  teaching,  men  come  to  the  requisite  require- 
ments of  the  atonement  by  baptism.  Those  statements  do  not  conflict — if 
I  understand  those  statements,  they  do  not  conflict  with  the  statement  I 
have  made. 

Q.  Did  n't  Mr.  Campbell,  as  quoted  from  page  555  above,  teach  that 
baptism  is  of  no  value  -whatsoever  -wJien  unpreceded  by  faith  and  repentance  ? 

A.   I  do  not  call  in  question  that  he  used  that  language. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  is  it  possible  to  put  a  plain  proposition  in  language  so 
as  to  have  it  imply  an  obscure  meaning,  so  that  some  other  meaning  must 
be  attached  to  it  than  what  a  man  says? 

A.  I  think  it  is  complex  in  its  terms.  Rhetorically,  it  may  be  made  to 
have  a  different  explanation. 

Q.  You  seem  to  have  been  studying  to  give  Mr.  Campbell's  plainest 
statements  rhetorical  explanations.  Do  you  see  anything  "complex"  in 
that  statement? 

A.  The  teaching  upon  that  subject  is  different  from  other  authors. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  how  is  it  about  this:  "By  baptism,  we  who  were  'by 
nature  children  of  wrath,'  are  made  the  children  of  God.  And  this  re- 
generation which  our  Church  in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  baptism  is  more 
than  barely  being  admitted  into  the  Church,  though  commonly  connected 
therewith ;  being  « grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  we  are  made 
the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.'  This  is  grounded  on  the 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  181 

plain  words  of  our  Lord,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  (John  iii.  5.)  By 
water,  then,  as  a  means,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated  or  born 
again;  whence  it  is  also  called  by  the  Apostle,  'the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion.' Our  Church,  therefore,  ascribes  no  greater  virtue  to  baptism  than 
Christ  himself  has  done.  Nor  does  she  ascribe  it  to  the  outward  wash- 
ing, but  to  the  inward  grace,  which,  added  thereto,  makes  it  a  sacrament." 
(  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  pp.  248-9.)  What  do  you  say  to  that? 

A.  Will  you  read  the  last  clause  again  ? 

Q.  "Nor  does  she  ascribe  it  to  outward  washing,  but  to  the  inward 
grace,  which,  added  thereto,  makes  it  a  sacrament." 

A.  I  would  like  to  hear  you  reaJ  sentence  or  two  back  of  that :  I  did 
pot  get  to  hear  it  all. 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  I  will  read  it  again  "By  baptism,  we  who  were  'by 
nature  children  of  wrath,'  are  made  the  children  of  God.  And  this  re- 
generation which  our  Church  in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  baptism  is  more 
than  barely  being  admitted  into  the  Church,  though  commonly  connected 
therewith;  being  'grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  we  are  made 
the  children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.'  This  is  grounded  on  the 
plain  words  of  our  Lord,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.'  (John  iii.  5.)  By 
water,  then,  as  a  means,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated  or  born 
again;  whence  it  is  called  by  the  Apostle,  'the  washing  of  regeneration.' 
Our  Church,  therefore,  ascribes  no  greater  virtue  to  baptism  than  Christ 
himself  has  done.  Nor  does  she  ascribe  it  to  the  outward  washing,  but  to 
the  inward  grace,  which,  added  thereto,  makes  it  a  sacrament."  What 
do  you  say  to  that? 

A.  What  is  the  question  ? 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  there  is  any  "complexity"  in  that 
doctrine? 

A.  I  think  that  there  is  an  incorrectness  in  the  formulation  of  the 
statement. 

Q.  You  think  the  formulation  is  incorrect? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  about  this:  "  By  baptism  we  are  admitted  into  the 
Church,  and  consequently  made  members  of  Christ,  its  head.  The  Jews 
were  admitted  into  the  Church  by  circumcision,  so  are  the  Christians  by 
baptism  "  ?  ( Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  248.)  How  is  that  ? 

A.  That  is  unsound. 

Q.  Then  of  this:  "What  are  the  benefits  we  receive  by  baptism?  is 
the  next  point  to  be  considered.  And  the  first  of  these  is,  the  washing 
away  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ's 
death  "  ?  ( Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  2464 


182  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  That  is  incorrect  and  unsound. 

Q.  Well,  [the  counsel  lightly  thsowing  the  book  down  in  front  of  the 
opposing  counsel]  that  is  Mr.  John  Wesley  in  his  Doctrinal  Tracts. 

A.  Taken  alone,  out  of  their  connection,  and  without  a  further  expla- 
nation, they  do  not  express  Mr.  Wesley's  own  idea. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Owen,  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiff.)  John  Wes- 
ley's Doctrinal  Tracts  were  published  by  the  official  action  of  the  Method- 
ist Church.  Isn't  that  true,  Mr.  Smith? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  the  teachings  set  forth  in  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  published 
by  the  authority  of  the  Methodist  Church,  a  true  statement  of  the  Method- 
ist doctrine  of  baptism?  Or  have  you  read  them,  and  are  you  informed? 
Do  you  think  those  statements  are  right,  or  are  they  incorrect  statements? 

A.  Taken  abstractly,  there  are  statements  that  would  not  be  correct ; 
but,  taking  Mr.  Wesley's  teachings  as  a  whole,  they  show  how  he  called 
baptism  the  washing  away  of  the  original  sin. 

Q.  Yes,  sir  ? 

A.  That  is  not  the  true  Wesleyan  doctrine,  such  as  a  minister  would 
want  to  accept;  that  would  not  express  the  doctrine  of  the  Methodist 
Church,  when  the  statements  are  not  taken  in  their  connection. 

Q.  "And  the  virtue  of  this  free  gift,  the  merits  of  Christ's  life  and 
death  are  applied  to  us  in  baptism.  '  He  gave  himself  for  the  Church,  that 
he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  Word,' 
(Eph.  v.  25,  26);  namely,  in  baptism,  the  ordinary  instrument  of  our 
justification.  Agreeably  to  this,  our  Church  prays  in  the  baptismal  office, 
that  the  person  to  be  baptized  may  be  'washed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and,  being  delivered  from  God's  wrath,  receive  remission  of  sins, 
and  enjoy  the  everlasting  benediction  of  the  heavenly  washing.' " 
( Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  p.  247.)  Do  you  think  that  that  is  not  a  fair 
statement  of  the  doctrine? 

A.  If  it  were  to  be  taken  without  a  just  explanation,  it  would  be  lia- 
ble to  be  understood  in  more  senses  than  one;  but,  if  it  be  understood  in 
connection  with  the  whole  teaching  throughout  and  the  proper  explana- 
tion, it  is  correct.  It  might  be  confounded,  in  many  instances,  with  this 
heavenly  washing.  This  heavenly  washing  is  the  true  spiritual  regenera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  removing  the  contaminations  of  the  soul;  and 
the  water,  as  I  understand  it,  metaphorically  speaking,  is  the  heavenly  or 
divine  application. 

Q.  It  is  ?  Does  not  the  Methodist  Church  teach,  and  did  not  Wesley 
do  so  too,  that  baptism  is  the  washing  of  regeneration ;  that  by  it  those 
who  are  "by  nature  children  of  wrath"  are  made  the  children  of  God; 
that  to  it  is  ascribed  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the  Church; 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  i8j 

:hat  «•  except  a  man  bo  born  of  the  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God" — is  not  that  the  doctrine  of  your  Church? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  expresses  the  doctrine  of  our  Church;  yet  it  is  lia- 
ble, when  taken  without  an  explanation,  to  import  something  contrary  to 
the  sound  meaning  or  understanding. 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Smith,  if  a  man  subscribed  to  that  doctrine  throughout, 
he  is  orthodox  in  that  respect,  is  he  not  ? 

A.  If  he  subscribe  to  it  in  the  sense  accepted  as  the  plain  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  he  would  be. 

Q.  Well,  if  you  were  to  accept  it  in  the  plain  meaning  of  the  words — 
the  plain  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words — would  you  call  him  orthodox  in 
that  respect  ? 

A.  Well,  yes;  but  I  state  this  reservation:  lean  not  accept  all  the 
interpretations  that  might  be  put  upon  those  words.  This  washing  of  re- 
generation, as  understood  by  the  teachers  of  our  Church,  illustrates  the 
operation  or  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  soul.  That  baptism  is  the 
washing  of  regeneration  is  merely  teaching  metaphorically  the  application 
of  the  Holy  Spirit — it  is  used  metaphorically  in  that  sense  in  the  expres- 
sion and  in  that  connection.  To  say  that  the  meaning  of  the  application 
of  the  water  is  imitative,  is  incorrect  and  must  be  rejected. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  does  not  the  Disciples'  Church,  in  relation  to  this  sub' 
ject  of  baptism,  adopt  the  scriptural  teaching  upon  it  ? 

A.  I  suppose  they  do,  if  they  take  nothing  but  the  Scripture  teach- 
ing upon  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  it  gives  any  other  than  the  ordinary  meaning  to 
the  words  of  the  Scriptures  in  interpreting  them  ? 

A.  Any  other  explanation  ?     I  would  say  so. 

Q.  Now,  then,  what  do  you  say  to  this?  "You  may  have  heard  me 
say  here  (and  the  whole  country  may  have  read  it  and  heard  it  many  a 
time),  that  a  seven-fold  immersion  in  the  river  Jordan,  or  any  other  water, 
•without  a  previous  change  of  heart,  in  ill  avail  nothing,  without  a  genuine  faith 
and  repentance.  Nor  would  the  most  strict  conformity  to  all  the  forms 
and  usages  of  the  most  perfect  church  order ;  the  most  exact  observance  of 
all  the  ordinances,  without  personal  faith,  piety,  and  moral  righteousness — 
without  a  new  heart,  hallowed  lips,  and  a  holy  life,  profit  any  man  in  refer- 
ence to  eternal  salvation. 

"We  are  represented,  because  of  the  emphasis  laid  upon  some  ordi- 
nances, as  though  we  made  a  savior  of  rites  and  ceremonies — as  believing 
in  water  regeneration,  and  in  the  saving  efficacy  of  immersion  ;  and  as 
looking  no  further  than  to  these  outward  bodily  acts;  all  of  which  is  just 
as  far  from  the  truth  and  from  our  views,  as  transubstantiation  and  purga- 
tory. I  have,  indeed,  no  faith  in  conversion  by  the  Word  without  the 


184.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Spirit ;  nor  by  the  Spirit  without  the  Word.  The  Spirit  is  ever  present  with 
the  Word,  in  conversion  and  in  sanctification.  A  change  of  heart  is  essen- 
tial to  a  change  of  character,  and  both  are  essential  to  admission  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  'Without  holiness  no  man  shall  enjoy  God.'  Though 
as  scrupulous  as  a  Pharisee,  in  tithing  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  and  rigid 
to  the  letter  in  all  observances,  without  those  moral  excellencies  usually 
called  righteousness  and  holiness,  no  man  can  be  saved  eternally;  '  for  the 
unrighteous  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.'"  (Campbell and  Rice, 
p.  678.)  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  isn't  that  just  as  genuine  doctrine  as  the 
Methodist  Church  has  ever  given,  either  in  its  Discipline  or  in  its  other 
teachings — just  as  genuine  in  every  respect? 

A.  That  statement,  without  any  other  explanation,  would  not  mean 
"the  heavenly  washing." 

Q.  Isn't  that  statement  just  as  clear  and  just  as  orthodox  doctrine  as 
was  ever  expressed? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  main,  it  is  orthodox. 

Q.  I  repeat  my  question :  Is  not  that  statement  as  correct  and  *s  or- 
thodox as  any  statement  of  doctrine  that  has  ever  been  made? 

A.  Weil,  it  does  not  express  the  full  theory ;  and  1  would  not  call  it  fully 
orthodox,  because  it  does  not  express  "  the  heavenly  washing." 

Q.  Just  state  where  it  is  unorthodox? 

A.  You  will  find  that  the  statement  in  reference  to  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  unorthodox. 

Q.  Now  sir,  again:  Does  not  that  statement  set  forth  just  as  clearly 
and  just  as  well  the  truth  as  any  of  your  teachings? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is,  some  of  the  sentences  can  be  taken  that  way. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  I  take  it  that  a  minister  of  the  gospel  would  want  to — 
would  try  to  answer  a  matter  correctly  when  he  is  called  upon  to  give  the 
truth. 

A.  Those  statements,  in  some  phases,  are  correct- 

Q.  Please  answer  the  question. 

A.  But  they  are  not  correct  in  all  their  provisions. 

Q.  But  I  asked  the  question :  Is  not  that  statement  just  as  plain  and 
explicit  a  statement  of  the  truth  as  your  own  Church  gives  in  the  Disci- 
pline, or  in  the  Doctrinal  Tracts? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  mentions  everything — it  recognizes  a  part  of 
them.  As  a  standard  of  faith  concerning  baptism  and  the  relation  of  t» 
sinner,  I  can  not  say  so. 

Q.  But  upon  the  subject  of  "the  washing  of  regeneration,"  upon  the 
subject  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism,  does  it  not  express  as  explicitly  the  or- 
thodox truth  as  your  Church  does  in  the  Doctrinal  Tracts? 

A.  As  I  have  already  said,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  is  not  objectionable. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  /<?f 

Q,  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  understand  my  question  ?  I  have  been  trying 
to  put  my  questions  in  as  plain  language  as  possible.  Do  you  not  under- 
stand that  I  want  to  know  about  the  statement  as  being  explicit  ? 

A.  Do  you  mean  to  have  me  explain  ? 

Q.  No,  sir ;  the  question  calls  for  an  answer  of  yes  or  no. 

A.  Then  I  mean  no. 

Q.  No? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wherein  are  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts  a  statement  more  explicit 
than  the  one  I  have  read  ? 

A.  I  have  not  been  reviewing  them  recently. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  know? 

A.  I  say,  so  far  as  the  Doctrinal  Tracts  are  concerned,  I  know  what 
they  teach  upon  baptism — that  is,  so  far  as  they  teach  baptism  theologic- 
ally; and  Mr.  Campbell  is  not  as  full  and  explicit  as  they  are. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  you  remember  any  passage  in  Mr.  Wesley's  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,  upon  the  subject  of  baptism,  that  is  more  explicit  than  the 
statement  I  have  read  from  Mr.  Campbell? 

A.  I  can  not  refer  to  the  Doctrinal  Tracts. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  will  you  answer  the  question  ? 

A.  I  say,  I  can  not  refer  to  any  particular  passage. 

Q.  ( By  the  Court.)  He  asks  you  whether  or  not  you  can  remember 
any  such  statement. 

Q.  (By  the  counsel  again.)  Do  you  remember  where  there  is  any 
more  explicit  statement  than  the  one  I  have  read? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  say  I  do. 

Q.  Whereabouts? 

A.  That  is  what  I  said ,  I  can  not  refer  to  it.  I  have  not  reviewed  the 
Tracts  recently,  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  speak  upon  the  subject. 

Q.  That  will  do  for  that.  Mr.  Smith,  going  back,  did  I  understand 
you  to  say  that  all  orthodox  denominations  require  baptism  as  being  neces- 
•ary  for  admission  into  their  churches? 

A.  Whether  I  understand  that  all  orthodox  churches  do  what  ? 

Q.  Require  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  for  admission  into  the  church  in 
full  membership? 

A.  1  believe  that  some  of  the  churches,  recognized  as  orthodox  in 
most  points,  do  not  regard  baptism  as  requisite. 

Q.  What  churches? 

A.  Some  churches.  The  Quakers  are  orthodox  in  m«st  respects. 
Pertaining  to  baptism,  they  understand  that  water  baptism  is  not  nece" 
sary;  they  reject  it  as  being  non-essential.  Those  people  are  orthodox. 

Q.  Then  there  are  orthodox  people  who  reject  baptism  ? 


186  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civtl  Courts. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  that  particular  sense  it  is  not  required  by  orthodox 
cr.urches. 

Q.  Well,  then,  do  they  reject  it  as  being  non-essential  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  say  that  they  reject  it  as  being  non-essential. 

Q.  Now,  then,  I  will  ask  you :  Do  n't  orthodox  churches,  of  course 
with  the  exception  of  the  Quakers,  require  baptism  as  being  essential  to 
the  admission  of  a  member  into  the  church  ? 

A.  That  other  churches  except  the  Quakers  do? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Except  the  Quakers  do? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  think  that  is  the  case. 

Q.  Then,  for  the  reason  that  the  other  churches  require  baptism  for 
admission  into  the  church,  the  Quakers  are  not  orthodox  in  that  respect? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  so  far  as  the  Christian  Church  acknowledges  and  requires 
faith  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God — faith  m  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Son  of  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  who  died  to  save  sinners  by 
atoning  for  their  sins  with  his  own  precious  blood,  and  who  offers  salva- 
tion to  all — it  is  orthodox,  is  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  in  those  particulars. 

Q.  If  it  require  true-  and  genuine  repentance  of  the  sinner  as  neces- 
sary to  admission  into  the  Church,  it  is  orthodox  in  that  respect? 

A.  Repeat  the  question. 

Q.  If  it  retire  true  and  genuine  faith  and  repentance  of  the  sinner 
as  requisite  fr,r  an  admission  into  the  Church,  it  is  orthodox  in  that  respect, 
is  it  not '. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  it  requires  confession  of  sins,  repentance,  and  a  profession  of 
faith  in  Christ,  it  is  orthodox  in  those  respects,  is  it  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  correct  in  those  particulars. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  to  get  all  of  it,  what  other  duty  or  point  is  there 
in  which  you  think  the  Christian  Church  is  not  orthodox,  other  than  what 
you  have  already  mentioned  ? 

A.  I  wish  to  say  in  regard  to  the  points  you  have  now  before  you, 
these  statements  I  have  admitted  as  being  orthodox  in  so  far  as  they  go, 
that  I  do  not  make  my  admission  as  implying  that  there  is  to  be  any  undue 
or  mysterious  teaching  as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  same. 

Q.  I  think  we  understand  you.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  what  other  point  is 
there  upon  which  you  claim  the  Christian  Church  is  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  There   are  the those   are   the   cardinal   points   which    I  have 

stated. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  18? 

Q.  They  are  ? 

A.  The  cardinal  doctrines  which  I  have  stated  before  I  might  have 
particularized  more  distinctly,  perhaps ;  but  I  do  not  care  to  mention 
only  just  what  is  called  for  in  the  particular  questions. 

Q.  Well,  Mr.  Smith,  in  your  examination  in  chief,  you  stated  that  you 
did  not  regard  the  Christian  Church  as  being  orthodox.  Now  I  want  you 
to  state  to  the  jury  all  the  points  that  it  holds  which  you  regard  as  not  or- 
thodox— give  them  in  recapitulation. 

A.  I  do  not  care  to  recapitulate  the  statements. 

Q.  Why  do  you  refuse  to  restate  the  points  in  which  you  have  testified 
that  the  Christian  Church  is  not  orthodox? 

A.  Because  it  would  take  too  much  time,  but  I  can  give  them  if  you 
desire  me  to  give  the  summary. 

Q.   Is  there  any  other  cardinal  feature 

A.  Sir? 

Q.  Are  there  any  other  cardinal  features  in  which  you  regard  that 
Church  as  not  being  orthodox  ? 

A.  There  are  none  except  those  I  have  specified  as  being  cardinal  01 
leading  points.  There  are  others  that  I  might  have  specified,  but  I  did 
not  think  it  was  needed. 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Smith,  I  understand  you,  in  speaking  of  orthodoxy,  that 
there  are  certain  cardinal  points  that  a  man  must  believe  when  he  comes 
into  the  Church,  and  that  there  are  other  points  in  which  persons  may 
have  differences  of  opinion  and  still  they  may  all  be  orthodox.  To  illus- 
trate: In  relation  to  baptism,  if  one  believe  that  immersion  15  the  only 
true  mode  of  performing  it,  you  would  not  regard  that  as  sufficient  to  put 
him  out  of  the  pale  of  orthodoxy,  would  you — simply  as  regards  his  belief 
as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  would  be  orthodox  in  that  respect ;  that  is,  in 
respect  of  his  claim  that  immersion  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism, 

Q.  Yes,  sir? 

A,  I  think  that  that  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  I  now  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  would  regard  a  church  which 
held  that  doctrine  as  being  an  orthodox  church? 

A.   I  would  not,  in  that  particular. 

Q.  Then  the  whole  Baptist  Church  will  have  to  go  out — it  is  not 
orthodox. 

A,   I  think  it  will,  on  that  particular  point. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Smith,  if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  all  of  the  churches, 
and  all  of  the  professing  Christians,  all  over  the  United  States,  believe  that 
immersion  is  a  proper  method  of  baptism  ? 

A.  If  that  be  true,  1  do  not  think  it  would  affect  my  view  of  ortho- 
doxy, or  of  orthodox  faith. 


i88  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  suppose  that  a  member  of  your  own  Church  should  in- 
sist that  immersion  is  the  only  proper  mode  of  baptism,  would  you  regard 
him  as  orthodox  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  you  turn  him  out  of  the  Church  for  that? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would  insist  on  proceedings  for  that  particular 
reason,  but  1  would  not  regard  him  as  being  orthodox  on  that  point — I 
mean  I  would  not  sever  his  connection  with  the  Church,  but  I  would  not 
regard  him  as  orthodox. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  is  there  any  other  orthodox  church  in  your  view,  other 
than  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church? 

A.  There  are  other  churches  which  are  orthodox.  A  number  of  other 
churches,  in  the  mam  points  of  faith  which  are  necessary  to  salvation — 
when  we  come  to  what  constitutes  orthodoxy  in  its  main  points  of  belief, 
are  orthodox.  Of  course  we  would  not  be  allowed  to  give  our  opinion  in 
the  case. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  again :  Is  there  any  other  church,  in  your  opinion, 
but  the  Methodis'  Episcopal  Church,  that  is  fully  orthodox  ? 

A.  In  the  sense  in  which  I  use  the  word  orthodoxy,  in  its  general 
sense — using  it  in  that  sense,  why  there  are  other  churches  that  are 
orthodox. 

Q  What  of  the  so-called  Baptist  Church  ?  Is  that  orthodox,  in  your 
view  ? 

A.  In  regard  to  those  things  essential  to  salvation,  it  is  regarded  as 
orthodox  on  those  subjects, 

Q.  Well,  then,  Mr.  Smith,  the  view  we  are  coming  to  is  this :  What 
is  genuine  orthodoxy  ?  To  reach  that  point,  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  is  a  church 
which  professes  the  following  doctrine  orthodox? 

"III.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  His  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreor- 
dained to  everlasting  death. 

"IV.  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreordained,  are 
particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite  that  it  can  not  be  either  increased  or  diminished. 

"V.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  His  eternal  and  immu- 
table purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath 
chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  His  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perseverence  in  either  of 
them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes  moving 
thereunto;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace."  (Westminster  Con- 
ffsrion  of  Faith,  pp.  27-8.)  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  indorse 
that  doctrine  as  orthodox  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  189 

A.  No,  sir;  I  don't  accept  that  as  correct  doctrine,  except  there  be 
qualifications.  It  might  be  accepted  with  certain  conditions— if  certain 
provisions  and  explanations  were  made.  If  it  were  explained  to  mean 
that  all  who  submit  to  the  terms  of  the  gospel— in  that  sense  it  is  ortho- 
dox ;  but  taken  in  the  sense  which  its  words  seem  to  import,  without  any 
additional  explanation  or  comment,  of  course  it  could  not  be  accepted— 
that  is  what  I  said  some  time  ago. 

Q.  "  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immu- 
table purpose,  and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath 
chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and 
love,  without  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perseverance  in  either  of 
them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes  moving 
thereunto;  and  alt  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace."  Now,  do  you  say 
that  that  doctrine  is  orthodox  ? 

A.  That  language  might  be,  in  a  qualified  sense. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  orthodox  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  n't  it  a  terrible  doctrine  ? 

A.  Without  a  certain  explanation,  it  is. 

Q.  Well,  is  not  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

A.  The  formulated  statements  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 
are  received  by  it. 

Q.  Do  n't  you  think  they  are  believed  by  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  they  are  believed  by  it  in  an  unqualified  sense. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  believe  every 
word  of  it — every  word  of  it  ?  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  what  would  you  say  of  a 
man  who  would  come  before  a  congregation  and  publicly  make  that  state- 
ment of  doctrine,  word  for  word,  and  then  would  not  insist  that  It  meant, 
just  what  the  words  plainly  import  upon  their  face  ? 

( To  this  question  objection  was  made  and  sustained.) 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Smith,  let  me  read  again  : 

"VII.  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased,  according  to  the  un- 
searchable counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth 
mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over  his  creat- 
ures, to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sm, 
to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice."  (  Westminster  Cnnfawon  of  Faith,  p. 
jo.)  Do  you  say  that  that  is  orthodox  doctrine  ? 

A.  Taking  the  formulated  statement  and  the  words  alone,  It  would  not 
be — it  would  not  express  what  I  might  be  led  to  conclude  is  correct;  but 


i  go  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

yet  I  might  word  that  formulated  statement  so  as  to  be  received.  Thun  we 
find  that  with  an  explanation  and  in  a  modified  sense  we  might  accept  the 
formulated  statement  and  yet  not  understand  it  in  the  plain  unqualified 
sense  that  the  words  would  seem  to  imply. 

Q.  In  other  words,  the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not  understand  it  as 
you  do? 

A.  The  Presbyterians  do  not  understand  the  words  as  I  do? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  They  do  not  understand  the  Confession  of  Faith  to  teach  or  mean 
what  I  understand  the  words  unqualified  to  express. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  do  n't  you  understand  this  to  be  the  correct  and  ac- 
cepted doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church:  That  some  men  are  foreor- 
dained to  everlasting  life,  and  that  the  rest  of  men  are  foreordained  to 
eternal  damnation,  and  that  those  who  are  foreordained  to  eternal  damna- 
tion can  not  be  saved?  Is  not  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ? 

A.  The  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  I  understand  it 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)      Answer  the  question:  yes,  sir,  or  no,  sir. 

A.  Well,  make  the  statement  again,  if  you  please. 

Q.  I  asked  you,  sir,  if  you  do  not  think  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church .  Some  men  are  foreordained  to  be  saved  and  that 
they  are  called  or  elected  to  eternal  happiness,  and  can  not  help  being 
saved ;  and  that  the  others  are  foreordained  to  eternal  damnation,  and 
can  't  be  saved — can  *t  help  being  damned  ?  Do  you  not  understand  that 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  held  and  maintained  by 
it  at  this  time? 

A.  You  want  me  to  answer  the  question  :  yes,  sir;  or  no,  sir? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Then,  under  that  demand,  I  say :  no,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  understand  it  to  hold  and  maintain  that  doctrine  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  what  is  the  qualification  you  would  make? 

A.  The  qualification  I  would  make  Is  this:  The  Presbyterian  Church 
received  that  formulated  doctrine  from  times  that  are  past,  and  there  has 
been  no  change  in  the  phraseology  then  used  in  the  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine, so  that  the  members  and  teachers  do  enjoin  that  theologically ;  but 
it  would  seem  that  there  ought  to  be  a  change,  for  perhaps  a  majority  of 
the  teachers  and  influential  members  of  the  Church*  do  not  believe  that 


v  Upon  this  point,  I  insert  the  following  correspondence  as  a  foot  note  By  way 
of  explanation,  I  may  say  that  I  am  very  much  interested  in  what  seems  to  be  the 
changing  aspect  of  religious  sentiment  in  the  world,  and  seeking  to  catch,  if  possible, 
its  positive  and  certain  drift.  In  my  efforts  to  inform  myself  from  the  best  sources 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  191 

doctrine  in  the  unqualified  sense  or  accept  what  those  words  would  seem 
to  imply;  but  they  entertain  more  liberal  views  of  the  plan  of  salvation. 
This  is  what  I  understand  the  present  faith  of  that  Church  to  be,  and  is 
what  I  mean. 

Q.  Do  the  Presbyterians,  as  a  class,  ignore  this  question  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  they  do. 

Q.  Then  their  faith  has  changed? 

A.   I  think  it  has  become  modified. 

Q.  You  think  it  has  become  more  orthodox  ? 

A.   It  is  more  liberal. 

Q.  More  orthodox? 

A.   Very  well,  I  do  not  understand  it  exactly  in  that  way. 

Q.  Do  you  regard  that  (that  is,  the  belief  or  disbelief  of  this  doc- 
trine )  the  test  of  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  I  do  not  regard  any  body  that  believes  that  doctrine  unqualified  as 
orthodox. 

Q.  Very  well ;  you  call  it  the  test  of  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


upon  this  question,  and  with  no  thought  that  it  would  have  any  bearing  upon  the  above 
witness's  testimony,  I  wrote  to  Dr.  William  H.  Green,  of  Princeton  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Following  is  the  correspondence  : 

'•  LIGONIER,  IND.,  October  26,  1883. 

"  Dear  Sir : — I  am  a  constant  reader  of  the  Herald  and  Presbyter.  1  am  very 
much  interested  in  the  changes  which  seem  to  be  taking  place  in  the  religious  world, 
that  I  may  get  their  certain  and  positive  drift,  if  I  can  I  observe  from  the  Herald 
and  Presbyter  that  there  is  springing  up  in  your  Church  a  desire  to  change  your 
standards,  how  extensive  this  desire  is  1  do  not  know.  And  further  If  1  am  not 
mistaken,  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Co/ifesston  of  Faith,  by 
its  adherents  from  what  it  was  fifty  or  one  hundred  years  ago  Being  interested  in 
these  changes  which  are  going  on  in  Christendom  as  a  historical  and  psychological 
study,  and  not  wishing  to  attribute  to  your  people  any  interpretation  of  their  standards 
which  they  themselves  would  repudiate,  I  apply  to  you  for  information  upon  the  fol- 
lowing point  :  What  is  the  present  conception  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  to  the 
doctrine  taught  in  Sections  III.  and  IV.,  Chapter  III.,  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
referred  to  in  Questions  12  and  13  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  and  in  Question  7  of  the 
Shorten  Caiechism — what  is  the  present  teaching  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  rela- 
tion to  the  decrees,  the  foreordination  and  predestination  of  God  ? 

"  Very  kindly  yours,  J.   H    EDWARDS." 

To  this  letter  D.  A    A.  Hodge  wrote  the  following  reply  : 

"  PRINCETON,  N   J     November  i,  1883. 

"REV  J.  H.  EDWARDS — Sir: — Dr.  William  H  Green,  the  senior  professor  in 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  handed  your  letter  to  me  as  the  Professor  of  System- 
atic Theology 

'  I  can  answer  your  inquiries  in  one  word.     As  far  as  known  to  us,  professors  of 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  And  the  man  who  believes  it,  you  would  regard  as  being  unortho- 
dox, at  least  in  that  respect? 

A.  If  he  believes  it  in  the  modified  sense  and  not  in  the  absolute  un- 
qualified sense,  I  think,  so  far  as  that  one  point  is  concerned,  he  would  be 
received  as  orthodox ;  that  is,  so  far  as  he  might  accept  it  in  that  modified 
sense. 

Q.  Take  the  witness. 

Re- Examination  by  the  Counsel  for  the  Defendant. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  you  may  state  what  the  truth  is  as  to  the  fact  that 
churches  have  certain  doctrines  that  do  not  form  or  do  not  constitute  the 
doctrines  you  call  orthodox.  What  is  the  fact  as  to  that  ?  Tell  us  whether 
or  not  they  have  some  doctrines  that  do  not  form  a  part,  do  not  constitute 
the  doctrines  that  you  call  orthodox. 

A.  That  is  a  fact. 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  if  this  doctrine  of  predestination  is  not  one  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  that  is  not  accepted  in  its  accustomed 
sense — whether  or  not  that  is  one  of  the  excluded  doctrines  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  isn't  it  a  fact  that  many  of  these  religious 
formulas  in  the  creeds — these  statements  of  belief — are  such  as  might  be 


Princeton  Seminary,  there  is  no  desire  to  change  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  It  may  be  honestly  desired  by  a  few  men  without  organization  or 
influence.  It  may  be  played  with  as  a  purely  theoretical  question  by  an  inconsidera- 
ble faction  in  the  newspapers.  But  the  question  certainly  is  not  entertained  anywhere 
as  *.  practical  one,  and  if  once  introduced  it  would  be  immediately  buried  by  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  votes,  and  by  an  infinite  preponderance  of  influence.  There  is 
no  likelihood  of  its  being  agitated  practically  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  next 
two  hundred  years,  any  more  than  in  the  past  two  hundred 

'•The  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  are  now  interpreted,  by  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  precisely  in  the  sense  the  words 
naturally  mean,  precisely  in  the  sense  in  which  they  have  always  been  interpreted  by 
intelligent  and  honest  men  from  the  beginning. 

•  "  Especially  there  is  not  the  signs  of  any  party  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  which 
wishes  to  put  any  meaning  upon  the  seventh  question  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  or 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  questions  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  different  from  the  mean- 
Ing,  on  the  same  subject,  of  John  Calvin — different  from  what  the  words  clearly  mean, 
and  have  been  always,  by  honest  and  sincere  Calvinists,  understood  to  mean 

'  I  hope  I  have  made  the  matter  clear.  There  is  no  doubt  that  I  have  stated  the 
facts  of  the  case  truly  Yours  very  sincerely,  A.  A  HODGE." 

"  P.  S.  — To  this  answer  to  your  questions  every  professor  in  this  Seminary  would 
heartily  subscribe,  and  every  friend,  patron,  and  trustee  of  this  Seminary,  the  oldest 
and  largest  in  the  denomination.  A.  A.  H." 

Thus  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  on  the  testimony  of  the  witness, 
must  go  —EDITOR. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

called  superfluous,  and  do  not  form  the  rule,  and  are  not  necessary  in 
any  way — that  they  may  be  interpreted  in  one  way  or  another? 

A.  That  is  true  ;  that  is  very  true. 

Q.  So,  then,  it  does  not  follow  that  these  churches  are  not  orthodox 
because  the  statement  in  that  respect  might  not  be  true? 

A.  It  does  not  follow  that  they  are  not  orthodox  because  the  statement 
in  that  respect  is  not  true. 

Q.  For  instance :  Some  statements  were  read  yesterday  from  the 
creed,  from  the  so-called  Methodist  Creed.  I  will  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a 
fact  that  the  profession  or  belief  in  these  may  not  be  made  in  such  a  way — 
if  one  can  not  make  a  profession  of  faith  in  them  in  such  a  way — as  to 
make  him  thoroughly  heterodox? 

A.  That  is  true.  That  is  what  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  make  you 
understand  in  some  of  my  answers. 

Q.  It  was  called  out  when  they  were  reading  to  you  in  the  shape  of  a 
question  from  the  creed — from  paragraph  6,  I  believe.  This  statement 
was  called  orthodox,  and  you  were  asked  if  it  were  orthodox.  Now,  I 
ask  you,  Mr.  Witness,  if  a  man  may  not  profess  to  believe  and  accept  the 
teaching,  and  at  the  same  time  put  such  an  interpretation  or  construction 
upon  it,  as  to  be  in  truth  wholly  heterodox?  What  is  the  fact  about  that? 

A.  That  is  true.  He  might  literally  accept  the  rule,  or  form  or  make 
an  expression  of  belief  upon  the  rules,  and  really  not  accept  the  doctrine 
at  all. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Witness,  if  a  man's  belief  or  disbelief  in  any 
of  the  essential  ecclesiastical  writings,  whether  his  acceptance  on  non-ac- 
ceptance of  them,  affects  his  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  If  I  understand  you,  you  ask  me  if  that  does  or  does  not  make  the 
test? 

Q.  If  it  would  be ;  yes,  sir. 

A.  No,  sir,  not  in  the  main ;  it  would  not  be  the  test. 

Q.  State  a  better  test  of  a  man's  profession  or  belief  when  he  makes 
nis  statement  as  he  understands  it.  For  instance  :  The  absolutely  correct 
belief  of  a  sermon.  State  it  with  your  own  interpretation  upon  it. 

A.  The  only  way  would  be  an  acceptation  of  his  belief. 

Q.  For  instance  :  If  he  accepted  the  Episcopal  Creed,  would  that  be  a 
complete  test  of  his  orthodoxy  ? 

A.  It  would  not. 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  <;orinoaox" 
is  right  faith. 

A.  Right  opinion. 

Q.  Right  opinion  ? 

A.  Right  opinion. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Right  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  right  opinion. 

Q.  And  there  was  something  read  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Creed.  I  ask  you  whether  or  not  this  is  your  answer — I  have  already  asked 
you  that  question.  Well,  further  along  you  were  asked  something  about 
heterodox  belief;  and  a  part  of  Mr.  Campbell's  works  was  read,  and  some- 
thing was  said  about  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  you  were  asked 
what  you  believed  with  reference  to  these  things.  Now,  I  will  ask  you,  if 
a  man  accepts  a  statement  throughout  as  right  in  respect  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  puts  a  peculiar  construction  upon  the  words,  may  he  not  be  heterodox, 
notwithstanding  his  statement  of  belief  of  it  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Now,  you  were  asked  yesterday,  Mr.  Witness,  whether  or  not  a 
man  professing  to  believe  in  a  certain  statement  of  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit  was  orthodox  ;  and  also  whether  or  not  you  would  accept  that  state- 
ment as  it  was,  or  whether  it  would  mean  more  than  the  mere  words.  I 
will  ask  you  whether  or  not  any  doctrine,  the  orthodoxy  of  which  you  were 
questioned  about,  as  pertaining  to  the  Christian  Church — whether  or  not 
it  may  mean  more  than  the  mere  words  would  indicate?  You  may  state 
what  the  fact  is. 

(Objection  was  made  to  this  question,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  Now,  I  ask  you  whether  or  not,  when  you  were  asked  that,  you 
meant  that  the  statement  may  mean  more  than  the  words  would  seem  to 
indicate  ? 

A.  I  meant  that  we  must  conscientiously  subscribe  to  it. 

Q.   (By  the  plaintiff.)     Conscientiously? 

A.  That  is  what  I  said. 

Q.  I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  a  paragraph  which  was  read  yes- 
terday: "Now,  as  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  in  the  work  of  mediation,  oper- 
ates through  his  blood ;  so  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  official  agency,  operates 
through  the  \Vord  and  its  ordinances.  And  thus  we  have  arrived  at  the 
proper  consideration  of  our  proposition,  to  wit:  In  conversion  and  sancti- 
fication,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Word  of  Truth." 
(  Campbell  and  Rice,  pp.  616-17.)  Is  that  orthodox,  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  I  do  not  regard  it  as  orthodox. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  you  stated  yesterday  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Camp- 
bellite  Church — the  Christian  Church — differs  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
orthodox  churches  in  relation  to  the  Trinity ;  and  they  read  you  a  lot  of 
statements,  and  then  asked  you  if  a  man  who  believed  them  was  not 
sound  on  the  question  of  the  Trinity.  I  will  ask  you  if  a  man  can  not  be- 
lieve some  of  these  statements  as  they  were  given  and  yet  so  interpret  them 
as  not  to  be  orthodox  ? 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  195 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Now,  then,  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not,  in  refer- 
ence to  any  one  of  those  skeleton  statements  read — for  instance,  the  one 
read  to  you  yesterday  touching  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — if  a  man  were 
to  be  found  who  believed  them,  that  would  make  him  orthodox  ?  What 
is  the  fact  in  this  relation? 

(Objection  was  made  to  this  question.) 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  or  not  such  belief  would  prove  him  to  be 
orthodox. 

(Objection  was  still  made  to  this  question,  but  it  was  answered.) 

A.  I  would  answer  in  the  negative.  It  does  not  follow  that  he  is 
orthodox. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  Court  please,  I  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  wit- 
ness to  a  few  propositions  here  in  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  ^7. 

(The  plaintiff  objected  to  the  defendant  reading  any  passage  that  was 
not  read  on  examination  in  chief  or  on  cross-examination;  but  the  objec 
tion  was  overruled,  and  the  passages  were  allowed  to  be  read  as  original 
questions.) 

Q.  Proposition  First.  "The  immersion  in  water  of  a  proper  subject 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one,  only 
apostolic  or  Christian  baptism."  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  is  that  a  statement 
of  good  doctrine  ? 

A.   It  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  Proposition  Second.  "The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  script- 
ural subject  of  baptism."  Is  that  orthodox? 

A.  The  denial  of  it  is  non-orthodox. 

Q.  Proposition  Third;  "Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past 
sins."  Is  that  a  declaration  of  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.   It  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  Proposition  Fourth  "  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a 
bishop  or  ordained  presbyter."  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of 
that  proposition  ? 

A.  That  is  orthodox. 

Q.  Proposition  Fifth:  "In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  oi 
God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  Word  of  Truth."  What  do  you 
say  as  to  the  orthodoxy  of  that  ? 

A.  That  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  Proposition  Sixth:  "Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  com- 
munion, are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical."  What  do  you  say 
concerning  the  orthodoxy  of  that  ? 

A.  It  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  I  will  now  ask  you,  Mr.  Witness,  whether  or  not  from  your  expe- 


196  Our  Orthodoxy  *n  the  Civil  Courts. 

rience  you  recognize  any  of  these  propositions  as  being  the  doctrine  of  the 
Campbellite  or  Christian  Church  ? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.   Instance  them,  if  you  remember  the  propositions. 

A.  Some  of  them  I  recognize  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  or 
Campbellite  Church.  The  first  one  I  did  not  hear  distinctly. 

Q.  Take  the  subject,  then. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  subject  I  can. 

Q.  For  instance,  that  the  method  of  baptism  is  by  immersion,  and 
so  forth. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  recognize  that  as  being  the  doctrine  of  the  so-called 
Christian  or  Campbellite  Church. 

Q.  The  second  proposition,  in  reference  to  infant  baptism? 

A.  That  is  not  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine. 

Q.  What  is  the  fact  in  relation  to  Christian  baptism  being  for  the  re- 
mission of  past  sins? 

A.  That  I  understand  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Campbelltte  Church. 

Q.  ( By  the  plaintiff.)  Did  I  understand  vou  to  say  that  that  is  not 
orthodox  ? 

A.  That  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  how  is  it  with  the  proposition  that  baptism  should  be 
administered  only  by  the  bishop  or  preacher  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  that  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Campbellite 
Church. 

Q.  How  is  it  about  the  Spirit,  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  oper- 
ating only  through  the  truth  ? 

A.  I  understand  that  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Campbellite  Church. 

Q.  What  do  yon  say  about  the  last  one,  that  creeds  are  necessarily 
heretical  and  schismatlcal? 

A.  I  understand  that  to  be  one  of  their  doctrines — one  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  or  Campbellite  Church. 

Rtexamination  by  tht  Plaintiff  upon  the  New  Sublet  Mattel  Inircuuced  by  the 
Defendant  on  the  RteAamination. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  1  understand  you  to  say  that  Christian  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  past  sins  is  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  ••  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins:  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holv 
Ghost."  (Acts  ii.  38.)  Do  you  understand  that  not  to  refer  to  past  sins  ? 

A.  Not  in  the  same  sense  that  1  understand  it  to  be  promised  >n  the 
Scriptures. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  You  quote  it  in  a  different  application  ?  Do  you  mean  to  say  that 
baptism  is  not  for  the  remission  of  past  sins  in  any  of  the  shades  of  mean- 
ing of  that  phrase? 

A.  It  looks  like  it  was  not  given  for  that. 

Q.  Will  you  answer  the  question :  Does  that  statement  in  any  and  all 
of  its  shades  of  meaning,  as  read,  bear  on  its  face  that  Christian  baptism 
is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins?  Is  not  that  what  the  language  plainly 
imports? 

A.  As 

Q.  Please  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Smith.  You  answered  Mr.  Glas- 
gow very  frequently  that  baptism  for  remission  of  sins  is  not  orthodox.  I 
desire  that  you  answer  my  question,  and  I  intend  that  you  shall  do  it.  I 
have  asked  you  quite  frequently  whether  or  not  you  understand  the  ex- 
pression "Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins"  to  be  any- 
thing only  what  the  plain  ordinary  language  imports? 

A.  Not  so  far  as  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  concerned. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  then,  when  Peter  says,  "Repent  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins; 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  do  you  understand  that 
Peter  did  not  mean  that  baptism  was  for  the  remission  of  past  sins?  Now, 
please  answer  my  question,  yes  or  no. 

A.  I  think  that  that  was  included  in  its  relation  to  the  results. 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  you  do  think  that  Peter  meant  and  included  past  sins  in 
his  statement  ? 

A.  As  a  result. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  there  is  no  use  of  equivocating  around  about  tht 
statement. 

(The  defendant  objects  to  the  manner  of  the  examination.) 

Q.  I  want  a  fair  answer  when  I  ask  whether  or  not  Peter  did  not  mean 
and  include  the  remission  of  sins — of  past  sins — as  the  purpose  of  baptism, 
and  I  mean  to  have  it. 

(Objection  was  made  to  this  question,  but  it  was  repeated.) 

Q.  When  Peter  says,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  do  you  not  understand 
him  to  be  referring  to  past  sins  ? 

A.  I  do  not  deny  it. 

Q.  Will  you  answer  my  question  ?  Do  you  understand  him  to  be  re- 
ferring to  past  sins  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  included  them  in  his  meaning. 

Q.  Then  was  Peter  orthodox,  or  was  he  not  orthodox  ? 
'  (To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Then,  is  that  which  I  have  read  from  the  New  Testament  ortho- 
dox doctrine? 


/pc?  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  That  which  you  read  from  the  New  Testament  is  orthodox,  yet  it 
is  subject  to  interpretation  that  might  not  be. 

Q.  Whose  interpretation — yours  or  mine;  that  which  is  the  plain  im- 
port of  the  words,  or  that  which  is  not?  Mr.  Smith,  if  you  understand 
that  Peter  meant,  when  he  gave  the  command  to  be  baptized  to  the  Pen- 
tecostans,  that  baptism  was  to  be  for  the  remission  of  past  sins,  is  it  heter- 
odoxy when  the  Christian  Church  affirms  the  proposition  that  baptism  is 
for  the  remission  of  past  sins  ? 

A.  Do  you  ask  me  that,  that  I  may  prove  baptism  is  not  for  past  sins? 

Q.  Yes,  sir;  if  you  can. 

A.  On  what  theory  that  doctrine  is  heterodox  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  "  Baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins"  does  not  denote  that  it  is  by 
baptism,  but  indicates  the  relation  which  baptism  sustains  to  us.  When 
we  come  unto  Christ,  and  are  pardoned  of  past  sins,  it  holds  a  specific 
place ;  for  it  is  true  that  we  must  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  ac- 
cordance with  Christ's  institution  of  it.  It  was  instituted  according  to  the 
divine  faith  which  brought  with  it  the  remission  of  sins,  and  we  meet  this 
remission  of  sins,  as  the  result  of  faith,  in  the  act  of  baptism — a  result  of 
exercising  it  in  this  ordinance.  While  baptism  is  designated  as  a  true 
ordinance,  yet  in  its  import  it  does  not  mean  that  it  is  for  the  remission  of 
past  sins.  Now,  if  we  were  surrounded  by  the  proper  explanations  I 
would  say  it  was  for  the  remission  of  sins;  but  by  the  divine  command  of 
Christ  it  is  not  truly  specified  that  baptism,  in  its  import,  is  for  the  remis- 
sion of  past  sins,  because  it  denotes  the  washing  of  regeneration  which  is 
accomplished  by  the  Holy  Spirit — that  is,  I  would  say  if  a  soul  were  to 
come  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  it  is  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  that  the  soul  is  converted  and  sanctified,  and  then  by  this  ordinance 
it  comes  into  near  relation  with  God. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Smith,  when  Peter  demanded  Christian  baptism  for  the 
remission  of  past  sins,  was  it  right?  Is  that  orthodox? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  is  orthodox  so  far  as  it  goes  and  in  its  proper  relation. 

Q.  When  Peter  says  it,  it  is  orthodox  doctrine  ? 

A.  It  is  orthodox  doctrine,  if  it  is  not  misapplied. 

Q.  But  when  a  member  of  the  Christian  Church  states  it,  it  is  not 
orthodox — is  that  your  proposition  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  how  it  was  you  answered  the  counsel  when 
he  read  to  you  the  proposition  with  reference  to  this  from  Mr.  Campbell'* 
debate — when  he  asked  you  if  a  church  that  believes  that  baptism  is  /  » 
the  remission  of  past  sins  is  orthodox? 

A.  I  did  not  mean  in  its  complete  import. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  tJie  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  You  meant  that  it  is  not  orthodox  in  its  complete  import;  that  is, 
speaking  of  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.  So  far  as  that  expression  has  any  bearing,  it  does  not  import  that. 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  how  does  it  come  that  you  did  not  make  that  expla- 
nation when  Mr.  Glasgow  asked  you  if  baptism  for  the  remission  of  past 
sins  is  orthodox,  and  you  said  it  is  not  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.  It  is  not  orthodox. 

Q.  Just  as  it  is.  Mr.  Witness,  what  is  the  use  of  saying  that  ?  I  un- 
derstand certain  things.  Just  state  in  your  own  language,  do  you  say  that 
it  is  orthodox  doctrine  or  not — that  is,  that  Christian  baptism  is  for  the 
remission  of  past  sins? 

A.  It  is  orthodox,  so  far  as  it  goes. 

Q.  That  is  what  I  asked  you :  is  Christian  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  past  sins?  Do  you  now  say  that  that  is  orthodox? 

A.  I  have  given  what  I  understand  to  be  the  theory ;  and  when  you 
say  that  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past  sins,  I  can  not  ac- 
cept that  as  orthodox. 

Q.  In  the  statement  as  I  asked  you,  "Is  Christian  baptism  for  the  re- 
mission of  past  sins?"  do  you  say  that  is  orthodox  or  not? 

A.  That  Christian  baptism  is  for  remission  of  past  sins  ? 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  Now  I  want  to  know  if  you  mean 

Q.  Take  it  just  as  it  is  here. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  Just  as  you  would  ordinarily  understand  the 
words  in  that  connection. 

A.  Will  you  please  ask  the  question  again  ? 

Q.  This  is  the  proposition,  that  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission 
of  past  sins.  Now,  taking  the  language  as  the  words  would  plainly  im- 
port, is  that  orthodox  doctrine  or  unorthodox  doctrine  ? 

A.  It  is  not  orthodox,  taken  absolutely  away  from  the  Scriptures. 

Q.  Then,  sir,  the  doctrine  of  Peter,  when  he  said,  "Repent  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  is  not  orthodox,  is  it? 

A.  That  is  correct,  because  it  is  in  its  connection. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  I  repeat,  just  state  whether  or  not  the  proposition  I  read 
from  Peter,  that  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  imports  past  sins — but  you  have  already  stated  that  to 
the  jury.  Now,  then,  I  will  ask  you  if  that  proposition  of  Peter's  is 
orthodox? 

A.  The  proposition  that  Peter  made  is  orthodox,  because  it  stands  in 
its  connection. 

Q.  Well,  sir,  just  take   it  as  it   is,  standing  alone,  what  do  you  say 


200  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

about  it  ?  what  do  you  say  about  it,  taking  that  verse  alone  just  as  Peter 
said  it? 

A.  I  have  never  taken  that  portion  alone. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  He  asks  you  to  do  that  now,  and  give  your 
opinion. 

A.  If  you  want  me  to  give  my  opinion,  I  will  say  that  Peter  is  correct. 

Q.  That  is  the  question;  taking  that  verse — the  thirty-eighth  verse  of 
the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — whether  that  is  an  ortho- 
dox statement. 

A.  That  Scriptural  statement  is  an  orthodox  statement,  of  course. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith 

A.  Of  course  it  must  be  taken  in  its  common  sense  application — I  re- 
fer to  the  purpose  of  baptism. 

Q.  Well,  I  mean  to  take  it  alone,  without  anything  else. 

A.  I  submit  that  that  can  not  be  done. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  You  are  to  take  it  alone,  of  course  not  consider- 
ing that  it  is  quoted  to  you;  you  are  to  take  the  literal  meaning  of  it;  you 
are  to  take  it  without  anything  else:  you  are  to  decide  upon  the  matte., 
and  then  give  your  opinion. 

Q.  The  purpose  of  my  question  is  for  you  to  pass  your  opinion  upon 
it  as  you  would  upon  any  subject — that  is  what  I  mean. 

A.  The  statement,  as  I  have  already  stated  before,  is  a  correct  state- 
ment. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  it  is  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then,  in  the  proposition  that  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission 
of  past  sins — I  ask  you  if  that  is  not  orthodox  doctrine? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Standing  alone  ;  that  is,  without  anything  else  ? 

A.  I  could  not  understand  its  import  as  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
when  it  is  taken  as  an  extract,  and  not  in  connection  with  the  faith. 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Witness,  when  Mr.  Glasgow  asked,  why  did  you  say, 
without  any  qualification,  that  it  is  not  orthodox  doctrine?  why  did  n't 
you  qualify  it  to  the  jury  without  being  called  upon? 

A.  Mr.  Glasgow  asked  me 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Now,  take  Peter's  statement  again:  "Repent  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
Does  that  mean  to  repent  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  then  to  be  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  Mr.  Witness,  what  do  you  say  to  the  proposition,  that  Christian 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  201 

Baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins — do  you  say  that  it  is  unorthodox, 
standing  alone  and  unconnected? 

A.  It  is  orthodox,  as  announced  in  the  Bible. 

Q.  Is  it  orthodox,  unqualified  as  it  is  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  as  it  is  announced  there. 

Q.  Well,  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins — is  that  an 
orthodox  statement? 

A.  As  it  is,  the  declaration  does  not  embody  faith,  it  does  not  refer  to 
it ;  and  it  is  faith  that  operates  to  purify  the  heart,  and  not  baptism. 

Q.  (By  the  Court.)  You  are  not  to  take  it  that  way,  but  you  are  to 
give  your  opinion  of  it  as  it  is  without  anything  else. 

A.  That  is,  the  Spirit  operates  with  it  and  through  faith — in  that 
connection  the  theory  is  correct,  but  the  promise  independent  is  not 
orthodox. 

Q.  That  is  not  the  proposition.  But  take  this:  "And  now,  why 
tarriest  thou  ?  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  (Acts  xxii.  16.)  What  do  you  say  about 
that? 

A.  As  far  as  it  is  a  Bible  truth,  it  is  correct. 

Q.  Well,  is  there  any  difference  between  saying,  "Arise  and  be  bap- 
tized and  wash  away  thy  sins,"  and  the  proposition,  "Christian  baptism  is 
for  the  remission  of  sins"? 

A.  What  is  that  question  ?     I  believe  I  passed  upon  that. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  to  the  first  proposition  that  "  the  immersion  in 
water  of  a  proper  subject,  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one,  only  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism."  Now,  I 
desire  to  know  if  you  accept  that  as  the  proper  baptism  for  the  remission 
of  sins — the  immersion  in  water  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit — whether  or  not  you  regard  that  as  proper  baptism  ? 

A.  Sir? 

Q.  With  reference  to  baptism  being  by  immersion  in  water,  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit :  do  you  say  that  that  is 
not  orthodox  doctrine  ? 

A.  Not  exclusively  by  immersion. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Witness,  I  will  ask  you  if  all  the  branches  of  the  Baptist 
Church  in  the  United  States  do  not  hold  that  baptism  is  to  be  by  immer- 
sion? 

A.  I  did  not  understand  the  statement. 

Q.  I  asked  you,  sir,  whether  or  not  the  whole  Baptist  denomination — 
all  of  them  in  this  country  and  in  England — does  not  hold  that  immersion 
in  the  water  of  the  proper  subject  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  one  and  only  baptism — Christian  baptism  ? 


2O2  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  I  believe  that  is  held  in  the  Baptist  Church. 

Q.  Now,  do  you  say  that  the  Baptist  Church  is  not  an  orthodox  de- 
nomination? 

A.  In  some  things  it  is  right.  To  have  one  point  wrong  does  not 
necessarily  exclude  the  Church  as  heterodox.  In  regard  to  the  genera} 
statement  of  faith,  I  should  regard  it  as  orthodox ;  but,  in  that  one  poinv, 
it  is  not  right. 

Q.  Then,  if  the  Christian  Church  has  recognized  immersion  as  the 
only  baptism,  if  it  be  right  in  the  cardinal  points,  it  is  orthodox ;  soicl  you 
would  not  exclude  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  if  it  were  right  on  the  points  I  have  considered. 

Q.  Then,  so  far  as  the  holding  of  the  belief  that  immersiow  is  \he  omy 
Christian  baptism  is  concerned,  you  would  not  make  that  thb  test  whether 
or  not  a  church  be  an  orthodox  one,  would  you  ? 

A.  In  its  general  acceptation,  I  say  I  would  not  exclude;  a  church  so 
far  as  that  part  of  the  proposition  is  concerned. 

Q.  The  proposition  is  this,  Mr.  Smith:  You  would  not  make  that 
the  test  of  a  denomination's  orthodoxy — that  you  would  not  make  the  be- 
lief that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism  the  one  and  only  test  of  orthodoxy ; 
that  you  would  not  exclude  a  church  as  heterodox  on  that  account.  Would 
you  want  to  make  that  the  test  ? 

A.  Not  the  exclusive  test. 

Q.  Then  you  would  not  say  that,  believing  that  immersion  is  the  one 
and  only  Christian  baptism,  a  denomination  would  thereby  be  made  heter- 
odox, would  you  ? 

A.  I  would  take  them  to  be  heterodox  in  that  particular. 

Q.  You  understand  my  question — I  know  you  do.  You  do  not  make 
that  the  exception?  Where  a  denomination  holds  that  belief  you  still  re- 
gard them  as  orthodox  ? 

A.  It  might  be  in  general. 

Q.  It  might  be  orthodox — do  you  say  that  to  the  jury? 

A.  It  might  be  in  general. 

Q.  Take  this  proposition :  "  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a 
scriptural  subject  of  baptism."  I  will  ask  you  if  the  entire  Baptist  denom- 
ination does  not  reject  that  doctrine? 

A.  I  understand  they  do,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  hold  that  the  acceptance  of  that  doctrine  is  to 
be  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  when  you  speak  generally  of  the  test  of  ortho- 
doxy? 

A.  I  submit  that  it  signifies  in  regard  to  Christian  teaching,  so  far  as 
these  things  being  a  test  is  concerned,  that  in  these  things  it  is  not  sound- 
not  correct  in  its  manner  of  Christian  teaching. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  203 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  but  take  the  general  class  of  denominations  that  are  con- 
sidered orthodox,  would  they  be  excluded  because  they,  for  some  reason, 
might  reject  that  belief? 

A.  If  they  were  orthodox  in  their  belief,  they  would  be  recognized 
in  the  general  sense  of  the  word  as  orthodox ;  but  as  heterodox  in  that 
particular. 

Q.  The  fourth  proposition,  that  "baptism  is  to  be  administered  only 
by  a  bishop  or  ordained  presbyter " — that  proposition  you  say  is  not 
orthodox  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  consider  that  proposition  as  orthodox. 

Q.  You  told  me  in  your  examination  hefore  that  you  regarded  the 
Quakers  as  orthodox,  did  you  not? 

A.  Not  in  every  particular. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  define  the  word  "orthodox"?  As  I  un- 
derstand the  meaning  of  the  word,  it  signifies  right  opinion;  but  when  you 
speak  of  it  from  one  stand-point  you  say  that  no  one  is  orthodox  except 
persons  who  believe  as  you  do.  Please  give  me  a  more  specific  definition 
of  the  term.  Do  you  say  there  are  no  persons,  according  to  your  opinion, 
who  are  fully  orthodox  in  other  denominations?  Is  that  the  way  I  under- 
stand you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  would  not  say  that  they  are  not  right ;  but  in  order 
that  they  be  orthodox,  they  must  believe  in  the  essential  principles  of  sal- 
vation as  I  have  given  them.  They  must  believe  in  the  existence  and  be- 
ing of  God — they  must  believe  in  His  person  and  existence. 

Q.  Now,  to  the  other  proposition:  "  In  conversion  and  sanctification, 
the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  word  of  truth." 
You  say  that  that  is  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  not? 

A.  Because  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  the  human  mind  often  in- 
dependent of  the  word — in  other  words,  in  addition  to  the  operation  of 
the  word.  The  word  is  the  instrument,  coupled  with  the  operation  of  the 
Spirit — the  Spirit  can  operate  through  the  word,  but  it  can  operate  with- 
out it,  and  independent  of  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God."  (John  i.  i,  2.)  Does  the  Spirit  of  God  ever  operate  independent 
of  that  Word? 

(To  this  question  objection  was  made.) 

Q.  I  will  ask  you,  sir,  if  the  Spirit  of  God  does  ever  operate  except 
through  the  Word — in  conversion  and  sanctification  does  the  Spirit  operate 
en  the  person  in  any  other  way  than  through  the  Word' 


204.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

A.  Just  repeat  the  question  again. 

Q.  Does  not  the  Spirit  of  God  operate  upon  persons  in  conversion  and 
sanctification  through  the  Word  ? 

A.  The  Spirit  of  God  does  often  operate  through  the  Word. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  But,  as  I  explained  before,  it  may  operate  independent  of  the 
Word. 

Q.  It  depends  upon  what  you  mean.  Do  you  mean  that  it  oper- 
ates independent  of  the  Word  as  that  term  is  used  in  the  first  chapter  of 
John? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  understand  the  term,  as  used  in  the  gospel  of 
St.  John,  to  be  synonymous  with  the  gospel — "  in  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,"  in  that  connection  the  term  "Word"  does  not  mean  the  gospel. 

Q.  But  is  not  that  Word  understood  to  be  the  Son  of  God  ?  and  has 
not  God  spoken  to  men  by  his  Son  in  the  gospel  ?  Now,  if  the  Spirit  does 
not  operate  independent  of  the  Son  who  sent  Him  (the  Spirit),  how  can  it 
be  said  that  the  Spirit  operates  independent  of  His  Word  when  He,  Him- 
self, is  the  Great  Word  who  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  ?  Can  it  not 
as  consistently  be  said  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  independent  of  God  ? 
But  to  the  remaining  proposition:  "Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union 
and  communion,  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical."  You  say  that 
that  is  not  orthodox  doctrine.  Now,  if  a  man  believe  right,  in  regard  to 
the  essentials  of  Christianity  as  taught  and  included  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, would  you  say  he  is  not  orthodox  because  he  docs  not  believe  in  the 
human  creed?  If  he  truly  believe  the  right  doctrine,  llie  divine  revela- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  independent  of  the  human  creed,  do  you  say 
he  is  not  orthodox  ? 

A.  It  would  be  almost  impossible  to  answer  that  question — it  is  a 
conundrum. 

Q.  The  belief  of  the  right  doctrine,  that  is  the  test  of  orthodoxy  is  it 
not,  Mr.  Smith? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  the  fundamental  source  of  that  doctrine  is  the  Bible,  is  it 
not? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  if  he  believe  the  Bible,  he  is  orthodox,  is  he  not? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Then  do  you  make  the  necessary  acceptance  of  human  creeds  the 
test  of  orthodoxy,  so-called  orthodoxy?  or  do  you  make  that  test  what  he 
believes  as  taught  in  the  Bible? 

A.  1  understand  the  answer — the  answer  which  I  made  touching  that 
question  is  that  what  it  imports — that  proposition — is  certainly  heterodox. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  205 

I  said  that  the  affirmation  is  not  orthodox,  because  there  might  be  what 
are  termed  hiynan  creeds  which  are  simply  formulas  of  doctrines  and 
duties  drawn  from  the  Bible,  and  which  express  the  fundamental  principles 
of  faith  and  obedience  as  found  in  the  Bible.  To  accept  these  is  necessary; 
I  regard  it  as  necessary. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  in  your  reexamination  when  you  said  that  a 
man  who  said  that  human  creeds  are  not  necessary,  but  are  heretical  and 
schismatical,  is  not  orthodox  ?  Do  you  say  that,  if  the  same  doctrine  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  it  is  not  true  doctrine?  What  do  you  say  to  it?  Do  you 
make  orthodoxy  turn  upon  the  submission  to  human  creeds,  or  upon  a  be- 
lief of  the  true  doctrine  as  taught  in  the  Bible  ? 

A.  The  formulated  test  might  be  necessary,  so  far  as  belief  in  the 
Bible  is  concerned. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  did  you  not  imply  in  what  you  said  yesterday  that  the 
Episcopal  Creed  was  the  only  test  of  orthodoxy? 

A.  I  told  you  that  it  is,  taken  without  explanation. 

Q.  Yes,  sir ;  taken  without  explanation. 

A.   Without  any  explanation. 

Q.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  then,  what  about  this  proposition  which  contends 
for  nothing  more  than  that  human  creeds,  taken  without  any  explanation, 
are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical  ? 

A.  It  is  not  taking  the  human  creeds,  but  that  which  they  include. 
If  a  person  believe  that,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  acceptation  of  the  right 
faith. 

Q.  Do  you  test  any  one's  faith  by  his  belief  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible?  or  if  he  reject  all  human  creeds  may  he  not  still  be  orthodox?  Be- 
cause he  does  not  believe  the  creeds,  that  does  not  necessarily  make  him 
heterodox,  does  it?  Now,  I  will  ask  you  if  you  take  this  view  of  the 
matter :  Do  you  want  to  still  hold  to  the  proposition  that  a  person  who 
disbelieves  in  human  creeds  is  not  orthodox  if,  at  the  same  time,  he  accept 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament? 

A.  I  can  only  answer  that  question  by  saying  that  perhaps  a  person 
might  believe  in  the  Bible,  and  still  by  his  formulated  statement,  drawn 
from  the  Bible,  I  could  not  regard  his  faith  in  the  Bible  as  genuine. 

Q.  Then,  Mr.  Smith,  taking  that  to  be  the  case,  there  must  be  some- 
thing more  than  the  Bible  for  a  man  to  believe,  in  order  to  be  orthodox? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  will  explain  that  by  saying,  we  must  have  statements  of 
faith  in  almost  the  same  expression  to  understand  what  is  said  about  the 
Bible  by  others. 

Q.  That  is,  you  say  that  human  creeds  are  sufficient  for  his  belief— is 
that  it  ? 

A.  That  very  form  necessarily  contradicts  the  statement 


206  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  Then  there  must  be  something  besides  the  Bible,  and  something 
besides  the  human  creeds,  in  order  to  constitute  orthodoxy? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  that,  if  you  please. 

Q.  Then,  you  say  the  creed  expresses  it.  Well,  there  is  no  other 
creed  which  the  Protestant  churches  will  adopt,  except  the  Episcopal 
Creed,  as  the  expression  of  belief? 

A.  The  others  are  to  be  explained  ;  and  it  depends  upon  the  definition, 
the  explanation,  in  order  to  agree. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  does  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  adopt  the  Epis- 
copal Creed  ? 

A.  Oh!  certainly  it  does  not  adopt  that  creed  in  every  exposition  that 
may  be  given  of  it.  It  does  not  accept  it  in  the  light  of  the  explanatory 
statements  of  its  matter  which  may  be  made  by  other  denominations.  In 
some  of  the  implications,  for  myself,  I  would  want  to  know  and  under- 
stand all  that  it  might  mean  in  its  qualifications.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
would  care  to  know  all  the  facts ;  I  would  take  the  truth  in  general,  unless 
there  were  something  that  would  seem  to  imply  different. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  is  not  the  proposition  true  as  it  has  been  stated,  that 
human  creeds  are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical  ?  Is  not  this  prop- 
osition true,  because  you  say  that  they  require  explanation;  and  do  not 
these  explanations  necessarily  generate  schisms?  Look  at  the  Methodist 
Church :  how  many  schisms  have  there  been  ?  If  they  are  not  necessarily 
schismatical,  why  do  they  have  to  be  explained  ? 

A.  I  do  not  so  understand  it. 

Q,  Mr.  Smith,  you  heard  this  read  yesterday,  and  I  will  repeat  it : 
"  In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons 
only  through  the  word  of  truth."  Now  I  will  ask  you  if  you  understand 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  only  miraculously  upon  the  heart  ? 

A.  The  supernatural  agency — I  do  not  know,  but  I  think  it  often 
works  miraculously. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  way  that  it  operates,  except  through  the  word 
of  truth  and  in  this  miraculous  way  of  which  you  speak?  If  so,  to  what 
extent  do  you  think  it  operates  other  than  it  is  specified,  other  than  it  is 
affirmed  and  denied,  in  the  proposition  before  us?  After  all,  I  will  ask  you, 
taking  the  whole  statement,  don't  you  think  it  is' orthodox? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  not  ? 

A.  Because  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  upon  us  directly  and  upon  the 
faculties  of  the  soul  merely  miraculously. 

Q.  Mr.  Smith,  to  what  extent  do  you  say  the  Spirit  operates  in  other 
ways  than  is  affirmed  and  denied  in  this  proposition  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  these  terms.  I  think  they  might  have  been 
more  distinctly  designated. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  207 

Q.  Are  not  the  terms  perfectly  simple,  and  can  you  make  them  mean 
anything  else  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  that  they  are,  when  they  are  not  taken  in 
their  connections. 


INSTRUCTION   BY  THE  COURT  TO  THE  JURY. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury : — You  will  now  be  permitted  to  separate  until 
one  o'clock  p.  M.  Remember  the  admonition  given  you  not  to  talk  about 
this  case,  nor  to  form  or  express  any  opinion.  Court  adjourns  until  one 
o'clock  P.  M. 

THE  CLOSING   OF  THE  CASE. 

JUNE  21,  1883,  i  o'clock  p.  M. 

By  the  Sheriff:  "Oh,  yes;  oh,  yes;  oh,  yes;  the  Noble  Circuit  Court 
is  now  in  session." 

The  defendants'  attorneys  now  came  into  court  and  filed  the  following 

REQUEST. 

"The  defendants  ask  that  the  Court  require  the  jury  to  find  a  special 
verdict  in  this  cause.  W.  C.  GLASGOW, 

"J.  H.  BAKER, 
"  Defendants'  Attorneys." 

Whereupon,  the  attorneys  explaining  that  they  conceded  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Christian  Church,  by  order  of  the  court,  the  jury  was  dis- 
charged; and  upon  the  records  of  the  Court  the  following  finding  of  the 
Court  upon  this  point  was  engrossed : 

THE  FINDING  OF  THE  COURT. 

"  That  said  Christian  Church  denomination,  and  the  ministers  thereof, 
are  orthodox;  and  that  J.  H.  Edwards,  one  of  the  ministers  of  said 
Christian  Church,  was,  at  said  last  mentioned  date  (January,  1883),  and 
still  is  ready  and  willing  to  hold  religious  services  in  said  building  for 
his  denomination." 


THE  REPORTER'S  CERTIFICATE. 

State  of  Indiana,      "» 

Noble  County,  /" 

The  State  of  Indiana,  on  relation  of  George  K.  Poyser  and  William 
A.  King,  plaintiff,  vs.  the  Trustees  of  the  Salem  Church,  etc. 

I,  George  A.  Yopst,  do  certify  that  I  was  appointed  and  sworn  in  said 
above  entitled  cause  to  take  in  short-hand  a  Verbatim  Report  of  said  case, 


208  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

and  that,  pursuant  to  the  order  of  the  Court,  I  took  a  Verbatim  Report  of 
said  case,  and  that  the  above  and  foregoing  is  a  full,  true,  and  complete 
transcript  of  the  evidence  relative  to  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Christian 
Church.  GEORGE  A.  YOPST,  Stenographer. 

"AVISE  LE  FIN." 

It  has  been  said  that,  "when  the  mills  of  the  gods  grind,  they  grind 
slow  but  fine."  May  it  not  also  truly  be  said  that,  "when  the  fire  of 
God's  word  burns,  it  burns  steady  but  hot"?  If  one  does  not  want  to  be 
burned,  he  must  keep  out  of  the  fire. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ARGUMENT*  BY  W.  D.  OWEN,  OF  COUNSEL  FOR  THE  PLAINTIFF. 

GENTLEMEN: — You  have  committed  to  your  trust  a  case  of  uncommon 
importance.  Never  before  in  the  history  of  juries  has  a  panel  been  called 
upon  to  decide  the  orthodoxy  or  heterodoxy  of  a  religious  body  of  people. 
That  such  a  thing  is  possible  under  the  eaves  of  the  Twentieth  Century, 
confirms  it  that  something  is  strangely  wrong  in  the  religious  world.  I 
believe  you  are  possessed  of  religious  prejudices.  Most  men  are.  But 
when  you  ascended  those  steps  into  that  box,  you  took  your  seats  above 
bias,  in  the  realm  of  exact  justice,  and  you  will  a  true  verdict  give,  in  the 
fear  of  God,  and  in  the  love  of  His  truth,  according  to  the  testimony 
rendered. 

A  Methodist  Protestant  body,  known  as  the  Salem  Church,  in  this 
county  of  Noble,  and  State  of  Indiana,  and  situated  in  the  country,  four  miles 
from  Ligonier,  owned  a  church  building  that  was  rotting,  and  a  member- 
ship that  was  dying.  They  resolved  to  build  a  new  meeting-house.  The 
membership,  being  unable  for  the  task,  asked  assistance  of  the  community. 
Friends  proffered  to  assist,  provided  the  house  be  made  free  to  other  relig- 
ious people.  Whereupon  it  was  inserted  in  the  subscription  papers  for  the 
house,  as  follows,  to-wit:  "When  the  said  house  is  not  in  use  by  the 
Methodist  Protestant  congregation  in  its  regular  worship,  then  the  said 
house  shall  be  open  and  free  to  the  services  of  all  other  orthodox  denomi- 
nations." Three  thousand  dollars  was  raised  thereon,  fourteen  hundred 
dollars  of  which  came  from  persons  not  members  of  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church.  Of  themselves  they  raised  but  one  hundred  dollars  over 
half. 

The  evidence  shows  that,  after  the  house  was  built,  J.  H.  Edwards,  of 
Ligonier,  pastor  of  the  Christian  Church,  preached  in  it  once  a  month  for 
nearly  a  year ;  he  occupied  it  on  Sunday  afternoons,  at  three  o'clock,  a 
most  difficult  hour  to  obtain  a  hearing;  and  that  he  always  had  good  atten- 
tion and  fine  audiences.  It  has  also  been  disclosed  that  the  audiences  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Post,  the  Salem  pastor,  were  neither  good  nor  fine,  and  that 
for  the  past  year  they  have  been  working  on  the  problem  of  a  furthe? 
reduction. 


*  This  argument  w"s  not  delivered. 
2O9 


2  jo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Last  January  the  Trustees  of  Salem  Chapel  notified  Mr.  Edwards  that 
he  could  not  longer  use  "their"  house,  "except  on  funeral  occasions."  A 
member  of  the  Protestant  Church,  and  a  gentleman  not  a  member  of  any 
church,  both,  however,  on  the  subscription  paper,  prayed  the  Court  for  a 
mandamus  requiring  the  doors  of  Salem  Chapel  to  be  opened  to  J.  H. 
Edwards  and  his  congregation. 

The  Christian  Church  did  not  bring  this  action.  Strangers  brought 
it.  We  would  not  be  known  in  this  case,  more  than  any  other  religious 
body,  but  the  defense,  in  their  answer  to  the  complaint,  charged  that  the 
Christian  Church,  the  Church  of  Christ,  of  which  J.  H.  Edwards  is  a 
member,  was  unorthodox  in  Christian  religion,  and  preached  and  practiced 
things  not  lawful  by  the  Word  of  God.  Their  answer  makes  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  Christian  Church  the  issue  in  action.  This  brings  us  to  the 
lead  in  this  trial,  by  casting  the  burden  of  proof  on  us.  We  are  com- 
pelled to  establish  our  orthodoxy.  We  take  up  the  lead  in  this  prosecu- 
tion with  considerable  earnestness.  We  have  much  at  stake.  The  verdict 
here  rendered  will  not  affect  the  Protestant  Church  to  any  great  extent. 
They  are  a  fragment  that  has  flown  off  from  the  Methodist  body  in  its 
natural  revolutions.  They  have  but  seventy  thousand  members  in  the 
world,  a  less  number  than  we  have  in  this  State  of  Indiana  alone.  They 
are  reckoned  as  fractions  in  religious  statistics.  Under  the  present  aggre- 
gating tendencies  of  religious  bodies,  they  will  be  absorbed  and  taken 
finally  out  of  existence  by  some  larger  party  within  a  few  years ;  which  is 
as  it  should  be,  for  they  have  never  had  the  least  excuse  for  an  existence 
beyond  their  plea  for  lay  representation.  To  us,  however,  your  finding  is 
a  matter  of  large  consequence.  Our  orthodoxy  is  on  trial.  Our  seven 
hundred  thousand  members  will  go  forth  from  this  house  "  legally "  or- 
thodox, which  will  be  a  strength  to  the  divine  plea  of  the  "Bible  alone," 
so  just  in  its  character,  and  so  valuable  an  ally  in  our  mission  that  you 
will  never  be  able  to  appreciate  the  good  you  have  done  for  the  story  of 
the  cross;  or  we  shall  go  forth  as  heterodox,  as  unworthy  of  His  high  name 
whom  we  worship.  The  baneful  shadow  of  such  a  verdict  would  not 
cease  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  would  hover  about  the  doors  of  our 
houses  of  worship  with  awful  significance. 

As  we  assert  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  defense 
denies  it,  the  burden  of  the  proof  rests  with  us.  Where  shall  we  find  the 
true  standard  of  church  measurement  ?  You  are  not  to  receive  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Edwards  as  furnishing  that  standard.  Highly  as  we  may  esteem  him, 
his  testimony  must  not  be  regarded  as  creating  a  standard  for  the  church  of 
the  living  God.  We  only  ask  that  you  accept  his  testimony  as  truly  point- 
ing out  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Christian  Church.  Likewise  the  ut- 
terances on  the  stand  of  Mr.  Chapman,  myself,  and  Mr.  Carpenter,  were 


• 

Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  211 

not  made  to  erect  an  orthodox  standard,  but  to  establish  clearly  before 
your  minds  what  this  Church  does  hold  and  do.  You  are  to  take  this 
solemnly  proven  position  of  the  plaintiff's  church,  and  place  it  alongside  the 
infallible  standard  of  Christianity,  and  see  wherein  it  may  vary,  or  if  it  fits 
into  its  exact  measurement  without  the  stroke  of  a  hammer.  Neither  will 
you  permit  this  standard  to  be  erected  by  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Smith,  who  is  the  acknowledged  head  of  the  eleven  witnesses  called  for 
the  defense.  His  testimony  that  we  are  unorthodox  and  heretical,  was 
doubtless  the  earnest  conviction  of  that  venerable  gentleman.  But  this 
jury,  in  its  justice,  will  not  tie  us  to  the  convictions  of  this  witness.  He 
charged  many  things  against  us  as  heretical  which  it  -was  his  "  understand- 
ing "  that  we  practiced.  If  you  find  anything  he  charged  against  us  as 
"heretical  and  unsound"  forming  a  part  of  our  position,  then  take  it  and 
try  it  by  the  standard. 

The  utterances  of  our  leading  writers  and  speakers,  here  introduced, 
do  not  establish  the  standard  of  orthodoxy.  They  are  only  corroborativ* 
evidence  on  our  faith  and  practice. 

Where  then  shall  we  find  the  desired  standard?  Dr.  Smith  testified 
that  the  great  doctrinal  points  of  theology  upon  which  the  orthodox 
churches  were  agreed,  formed  the  test.  And  he  asserted  that  differing 
from  them  was  heresy.  These  agreed  points  are  the  atonement,  depravity, 
impact  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  Trinity.  A  few  of  the  Protestant  chu.clies 
have  made  a  corner  on  these  elements  in  transcendental  theology,  and 
won't  let  any  one  into  their  orthodox  pool  unless  accepting  their  state- 
ments of  these  four  cardinal  points.  Scarcely  any  matter  what  else  be 
preached,  the  acceptance  of  these  establishes  your  orthodoxy.  These  funda- 
mental points  of  Messrs.  Smith  and  Post  constitute  the  popular  orthodox 
standard.  They  have  sworn  it.  Also,  these  must  be  received  in  the  form- 
ulated statements  given  by  the  schools.  But  these  are  not  the  standard. 
They  are  not  the  test  of  Christian  fellowship  and  character.  No  man  has  ever 
been  commanded  by  divine  authority  to  believe  in  or  to  obey  either  of  these 
formulated  statements.  To  enforce  them  on  the  soul  is  impious  towards 
the  Head  of  the  church,  and  subversive  of  the  plan  of  Divine  government. 
They  are  the  doctrines  of  scholastic  divinity,  the  vapory  fulminations  of 
brains  pregnant  with  the  philosophies  of  theology,  but  barren  of  the  simple 
story  of  him  whose  life  has  filled  the  nations  with  light,  and  whose  love  is 
bringing  a  weeping  world  to  his  cross.  The  acceptance  of  these  formu- 
lated statements  can  never  bring  a  soul  to  the  presence  of  its  God,  nor  for- 
give a  single  sin.  They  may  be  the  test  of  recognition  among  numerous 
religious  bodies,  but  they  can  not  decide  the  fitness  of  a  church  to  wear  the 
name  of  the  risen  Christ. 

By  what  authority  has  any  school,  or  church,  or  set  of  churches  ever 


212  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

set  up  a  standard  of  orthodoxy?  No  competent  authority  has  ever  au- 
thorized it.  It  was  a  power  unasked  for  in  heaven,  unassumed  in  hell, 
and  only  usurped  among  men  when  theologians  were  born.  We  repudiate 
these  standards  which  the  defense  seeks  to  have  accepted  here.  They  are 
partial  and  sectarian.  'Tis  ourselves  who  have  affirmed  our  orthodoxy. 
Not  against  any  other  church,  but  before  God.  The  word  orthodoxy 
means  the  true  Christian  faith.  We  bring  the  book  of  the  Christian  faith 
»nd  place  it  before  you.  You  have  heard  our  sworn  witnesses  on  what  we 
teach.  Take  our  positions,  measure  them  by  the  teachings  in  this  Word 
of  God.  And  if  they  they  lie  four-square  by  the  line  herein  given  by  the 
Spirit,  justify  us  by  your  verdict;  if  they  do  not,  cast  us  forth,  as  also  shall 
the  judgment  of  God  at  the  last  day. 

Hence  in  our  evidence  we  have  known  no  standard  but  the  Word  of 
God.  We  lift  it  above  the  heads  of  all  the  theologies,  assert  that  it  is 
divine,  and  challenge  the  defense  to  refuse  it  as  the  final  chamber  of  ap- 
peal in  this  action.  The  defense  must  come  to  this  standard ;  we  can  not 
go  to  theirs.  Therefore  have  we  introduced  the  Bible  as  the  Christian's 
only  standard  of  guidance.  It  says,  "The  entrance  of  thy  Word  giveth 
light."  It  says,  "The  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."  That 
is  all  the  power  needed  in  the  world.  It  says,  "Ail  scripture  given  by  in- 
spiration  is  profitable  for  reproof,  for  doctrine,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  every 
good  work."  By  inspiration  it  pronounces  itself  able  to  accomplish  that 
for  which  it  was  given  to  man.  We  have  appealed  to  this  infallible  and 
divinely  true  standard. 

The  defense  has  followed  us  up  here,  and  say  they  place  the  Bible  in 
all  their  creeds  as  the  only  correct  test,  but  that  we  do  not  make  acceptable 
interpretations  of  the  great  cardinal  doctrines.  Our  witnesses  have  repu- 
diated these  interpretations  from  every  source  whatsoever.  To  stand  over 
a  church,  or  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  proclaim  one  a  heretic  for  refusing 
to  accept  certain  statements  of  divinity  is  the  worst  of  heresies.  This 
scholastic  theology  has  desolated  the  house  of  God  for  fifteen  hundred 
years.  The  crime  of  the  church  has  been  that  it  has  assumed  to  know 
more  than  Christ  and  him  crucified.  One  may  comprehend  all  these  doc- 
trines, and  never  know  a  sin  forgiven ;  he  may  have  mastered  all  the  com- 
plicated formulas  of  systematic  divinity,  and  never  had  his  heart  touched 
by  the  love  of  God.  But  if  one  accepts  the  gospel,  he  has  been  touched 
by  the  cross,  he  knows  his  sins  forgiven,  and  has  come  to  the  salvation  of 
God.  If  he  be  saved,  Christ  is  for  him,  and  who  can  be  against  him  ?  The 
heretical  maledictions  of  a  doctor  of  divinity  can  not  reach  him  there.  If 
any  man  be  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  creature.  His  orthodoxy  is  estab- 
lished. What  God  has  cleansed  call  not  thou  common  or  unclean. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  213 

The  Word  of  God  must  decide  all  our  controversies.  The  true  Chris- 
tian faith — real  orthodoxy — is  receiving  the  Bible  alone,  and  obeying  the 
commandments  which  take  us  from  the  world  into  Christ.  Who  have 
done  this  are  orthodox.  Who  have  not  done  so  can  not  so  claim.  We 
claim  to  have  done  this. 

Gentlemen,  we  accept  the  law's  assertion  that  you  are  twelve  men 
good  and  true,  and  with  confidence  we  place  this  Word  of  God  before  you 
as  "the  divine  path  of  salvation,"  of  which  path  divinity  has  said,  "It  is 
so  plain  that  the  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err  therein." 
Our  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  God  is  such  that  we  believe  the  path  is 
just  that  plain.  Although  every  one  of  you  differ  widely  from  us  in  your 
religious  views,  we  believe  you  look  down  this  book  and  see  that  path  as 
it  is.  We  have  unrolled  the  history  of  our  Church  before  you,  and  with  an 
unfaltering  trust  in  your  uprightness  we  boldly,  confidently  commit  to 
your  decision  whether  we  have  ever,  by  faiths  taught  or  practices  obeyed, 
stepped  beyond  these  ordinances  of  the  King. 

Orthodoxy  does  not  mean  the  formulated  doctrines  of  the  schools.  It 
does  not  mean  a  peculiar  and  technical  phraseology  concerning  the  car- 
dinal points  of  direct  impact,  depravity,  atonement,  and  the  Trinity.  We 
have  ascertained  that  it  means  the  true  Christian  faith.  Putting  it  into  prac- 
tical operation  it  signifies  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  simply  the  Bible. 
Being  permissible,  under  the  evidence,  let  us  gc  back  to  the  original  time 
and  take  some  observations  along  the  line  of  operation  when  this  standard 
was  set  up  and  its  great  principles  were  for  the  first  time  put  in  motion. 

We  are  told  in  the  divine  testimony  that  the  doings  of  Israel  were 
written  for  our  ensample.  Israel,  a  nation  of  two  million  souls,  was 
assembled  around  Sinai — the  pulpit  of  the  Almighty — where  he  gave 
them  the  law  which  formulated  their  religion,  and  created  them  a  church. 
There  had  been  no  church  before  this.  There  was  no  church  in  Abraham. 
From  Eden  to  Sinai  the  world  was  churchless.  All  worship  had  been  re- 
stricted to  family  lines.  We  now  see  the  family  lines  enlarge  until  they 
swell  into  a  single  circumference,  and  all  Israel,  so  far  as  worship  is  con- 
cerned, is  melted  into  one  family  before  the  Lord.  Families  and  tribes 
sink  from  sight,  and  the  church  in  the  wilderness  stands  a  single  organi- 
zation, witfi  one  tabernacle,  one  high  priest,  one  uniform  and  unchangea- 
ble order  of  worship  and  practice.  If  the  Saviour  built  his  house  after 
the  pattern  of  the  sample  shown  in  the  Mount,  he  has  one  tabernacle,  one 
high  priest,  one  uniform  and  unchangeable  order  of  worship  and  practice. 
But  if  the  theory  of  the  defense  be  correct,  it  is  a  righteous  thing  to  break 
up  the  circumference  line  of  this  organization,  and  have  a  wilderness  of 
lesser  lines;  to  dissolve  the  solitary  house,  to  wreck  the  real  unified  body, 
and  let  a  house  be  built  on  Mount  Gerizim,  or  any  other  mount,  and  bear 


214.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

any  other  name;  to  let  the  objects  of  faith  be  altered  or  increased  at 
pleasure,  and  the  practices  be  changed  by  climate  and  observed  according 
to  individual  caprice.  The  defense  is  manifestly  wrong.  God  never  in- 
tended for  His  house  to  be  desolated  by  such  confusion.  His  dealings 
with  Israel,  after  this  time,  afford  an  incontrovertible  ensample.  That 
people  were  thrown  into  conflicts  by  the  opinions  of  the  rabbis  growing 
into  the  dignity  of  law.  They  accepted  doctrines  that  came  from  their 
great  elders,  and  received  traditions  because  they  were  venerable.  A  part 
of  their  tribes  wandered  from  Palestine,  and  the  remaining  ones  were  di- 
vided in  their  worship,  and  split  into  sects.  Rendered  blind  by  their  pride 
and  the  bitterness  of  their  strifes,  they  knew  not  Christ  when  he  came  as 
the  fulfillment  of  their  law.  Had  they  been  living  in  the  law,  they  would 
have  known  Him,  and  a  united  Israel  would  have  speedily  converted  the 
world.  But  instead  they  were  a  divided  house,  with  a  disregarded  law; 
and  a  world  with  a  ransom  was  prostrate  under  sin.  The  indignant  wrath 
of  Almighty  God  was  stirred  against  Israel,  and  for  these  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  she  has  been  kingless  and  priestless ;  she  has  been  a  wanderer, 
with  every  man's  hand  raised  against  her,  and  finding  no  rest  for  her 
weary  feet.  Her  presence  to-day  in  every  commercial  center  of  the  earth, 
persecuted,  but  "going  on  forever,"  forever  expiring  but  never  dead,  is  a 
living  monument  to  the  integrity  of  God.  Men  may,  while  professing  to 
be  His  children,  divide  His  house,  and  disregard  His  law,  but  His  judgments 
shall  not  fail.  On  every  public  square  you  meet  Israel  with  that  curl  of 
the  hair  and  print  of  features  stamped  upon  Abraham  and  Moses.  Jeho- 
vah says,  «'  My  house  is  divided  and  my  lawe  altered,  but  these  wanderers 
shall  be  changeless  forever."  If  this  be  true  of  the  type,  how  much  sorer 
shall  be  the  punishment  visited  on  those  who  distract  the  real  house. 

The  interest  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  humanity  is  more  universal 
and  permanent  than  the  interest  of  any  earthly  government  can  be;  so 
the  testimony  offered  by  the  records  of  the  New  Testament  upon  the 
establishment  of  its  church  or  house  of  salvation  is  of  primary  value. 
Whatever  it  testifies  was  then  done,  must  be  accepted  as  the  revealed 
purpose  of  Divinity.  A  law  inaugurated,  a  commandment  given,  an 
ordinance  established,  an  example  recorded,  or  a  suggestion  offered, 
are  all  and  severally  to  be  viewed  as  revelations  of  the  divine  mind  on 
human  redemption.  We  accept  and  live  by  them,  or  reject  and  die  from 
them.  When  God  gives  a  commandment  or  form,  it  is  to  be  obeyed.  No 
substitution  will  answer.  The  thing  given  is  what  the  Father  intended. 
To  say  that  it  is  not  clothed  with  an  imperial  negative,  a  "thou  shall  not 
do  otherwise,"  is  trifling  with  the  eternal  character.  Whatever  is  given 
has  the  royal  stamp  upon  it.  That,  that  alone,  that  in  its  entirety,  must  be 
obeyed.  A  deviation  from  that  precise  thing  is  disobedience  and  heresy. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  215 

Cain  and  Abel  were  commanded  to  bring  a  sacrifice  from  the  flocks.  Abel 
brought  a  sacrifice  from  the  flocks,  Cain  brought  one  from  the  produce  of 
his  fields.  And  we  read  that  God  had  respect  unto  Abel  and  his  sacrifice, 
but  had  not  respect  unto  Cain  and  his  sacrifice.  Cain,  enraged,  persecuted 
his  brother  who  had  given  a  simple  and  exact  obedience.  Ever  since,  the 
descendants  of  Cain  have  been  persecuting  their  brethren  who  persist  in  a 
simple  and  exact  obedience.  It  won  't  do  to  say,  "  If  the  heart  is  all  right, 
all  is  right,"  for  God  here,  in  the  morning  of  his  dealings  with  men,  put 
his  brand  on  this  heart  business,  and  refused  to  accept  the  professions  of 
a  heart  when  he  had  required  the  sacrifice  of  a  lamb.  The  primary  mo- 
tives of  Christianity  were  involved  here,  for  the  Apostle  testifies  that,  "by 
faith  Abel  offered  a  more  acceptable  sacrifice  than  Cain."  The  funda- 
mental prerequisite  to  obedience  was  lacking  in  Cain.  Our  piety,  prayers, 
and  heart  are  not  the  standard,  if  faith  is  in  rebellion.  Faith  accepts  all 
and  obeys  all. 

Now,  in  the  establishment  of  Christ's  kingdom,  we  recognize  Him  as 
its  sole  founder  and  deathless  lawgiver.  Just  prior  to  his  ascension  the 
Saviour  said  to  his  apostles,  "All  authority  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given 
into  my  hands.  I  will  send  you  the  Spirit.  He  will  lead  you  into  all 
truth.  Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  make  disciples  of  all  men, 
teach  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.  Lo ! 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world."  Edwards  testified 
that  this  commission  from  Jesus  was  the  sole  authority  of  the  apostles  to 
act  in  the  new  empire  or  church.  We  are  all  agreed  upon  this.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost  the  Spirit  came.  The  apostles  proclaim  the  gospel.  Yet 
not  they,  but  the  Spirit  that  was  in  them.  The  Spirit  used  the  apostles  as 
instruments  through  which  it  addressed  the  people.  Those  utterances 
came  to  the  hearers  clothed  with  an  awful  majesty.  It  was  a  voice  from 
heaven  uttering  words  whereby  men  might  be  saved.  Three  thousand 
souls  were  that  day  added  unto  them,  entered  the  kingdom,  joined  the 
church.  The  next  day  five  thousand  more  came  in.  Shortly  churches 
were  established  in  Ephesus,  Corinth,  Crete,  Rome,  and  before  the  last 
apostle's  death  the  gospel  had  been  offered  to  every  civilized  people.  The 
apostles  never  made  a  change  in  their  preaching.  What  they  preached 
on  Pentecost  was  preached  everywhere  they  went.  They  could  not  have 
varied  it  had  they  so  desired.  It  was  freighted  with  the  destiny  of  human 
souls.  God's  spirit  had  come  to  protect  its  unvarying  form.  From  Peter, 
at  Jerusalem,  to  the  last  sermon  of  John,  every  apostolic  action  thereon 
was  the  same  as  the  first,  and  unchangeable  as  the  decrees  of  eternity. 
Whatever  one  inquiring  sinner  was  told  to  do,  every  other  one  under  a 
like  state  or  condition  was  told  to  do.  It  was  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit,  which  was  the  very  act  of  God  himself. 


216  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

What  does  this  divine  standard  say  concerning  the  effect  of  the 
preached  gospel  upon  mankind.  It  caused  men  to  have  faith  in  Jesus  as 
the  Christ  of  God,  and  to  ask  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved.  They  were 
told  to  repent — a  repentance  which  in  that  day  did  not  mean  a  wail  of 
tears  alone,  but  a  complete  revolution  of  character,  a  turning  of  the  self 
entirely  around,  from  walking  from  God  to  walking  towards  God ;  a  con- 
verting that  was  potent  and  real.  Then  they  were  baptized  into  Christ. 
They  were  now  in  His  body,  which  is  the  church,  and  were  to  begin  the 
life  of  Christiikeness.  To  be  a  Christian,  one  had  to  reveal  a  faith  in  Christ, 
come  to  repentance,  and  be  baptized.  There  is  not  a  solitary  case  in  the 
gospel  wheie  any  soul  is  said  to  be  saved  where  one  of  these  is  omitted  ; 
not  one  whe^e  more  is  required. 

We  asksd  Rev.  Mr.  Post,  who  made  affidavit  we  were  heretics,  if  he 
could  give  us  an  exception  to  this  statement.  He  cited  Lydia  and  he* 
household!  Mr.  Post's  memory  is  a  shade  peculiar,  but  we  always  had  the 
documents  by  which  he  could  refresh  his  mind,  and  he  never  failed  in  the 
end  to  clear  the  mists  away  and  come  out  all  right.  After  mature  reflec- 
tion and  refreshment,  he  concluded  Lydia  did  believe  and  was  baptized. 
He  then  saui  he  could  n't  cite  any  more  cases  off-hand. 

We  have  bogged  the  learned  counsel  to  give  us  one  case,  anywhere 
from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  the  final  amen  of  Revelation,  where  a  soul 
was  said  to  be  saved  without  faith,  and  repentance,  and  baptism.  With  a 
persistency  that  mocked  the  expectations  of  every  one  of  their  followers 
in  this  audienre,  they  failed  to  attempt  such  a  showing.  We  besought 
them  to  show  us  in  all  that  history  where  more  than  this  was  required  to 
brin§  man  into  Christ.  With  a  strange  fidelity  to  their  doctrine,  they  con- 
tinued to  assert  we  were  heretics,  yet  steadfastly  refused  to  show  us  the 
additional  reouirement.  Even  Dr.  Smith,  with  all  his  resources,  acquired 
and  imaginative,  was  unable  to  construct  an  additional  condition  of  salva- 
tion. Eleven  preachers,  representing  different  denominations,  have  united 
to  sustain  the  defense.  This  court-room  has  been  filled  with  the  troubled 
num  of  their  consultations.  Their  theology  had  been  attacked  with  a 
perilous  affliction,  it  had  been  asked  to  square  itself  with  the  word  of  God. 
They  have  stirred  up  their  well  stored  minds,  they  have  thumbed  the  for- 
gotten books  in  their  brains,  they  have  dragged  the  sea  of  their  theological 
lore  from  shore  to  shore,  and  have  come  back  empty-handed  of  any  addi- 
tional requirement  to  bring  one  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ  other  than  we 
have  shown.  Baffled,  they  sit  like  sullen  specters  over  some  cherished  ruins, 
while  above  their  heads  appear  the  maledictions  of  Jehovah's  word,  "If 
any  man  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  than  that  which 
has  been  delivered  you,  let  him  be  accursed." 

The  testimony  of  Christ  is  contained  in  his  life  as  written  by 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  21? 

Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  He  never  taught  a  doctrine  as  the  world  to-day 
understands  scholastic  doctrine.  His  whole  teaching  had  relation  to  him- 
self. His  conflict  with  the  world  was  a  personal  one,  it  was  not  doctrinal, 
(t  was  to  have  men  accept  Him.  He  proclaimed  himself  the  subject  of  an 
universal  faith,  that  all  men  ought  to  love  Him,  that  all  men  ought  to 
serve  and  obey  Him.  Search  through  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  and 
evangelists:  each  of  them  was  true  to  Christ  and  no  more  taught  a  doctrine. 
They  were  strangers  to  scholastic  divinity.  They  preached  that  men  must 
love  Jesus,  must  have  faith  in  Jesus,  must  serve  and  obey  Jesus,  and  this 
would  bring  them  to  salvation.  Love  for  Jesus,  faith  in  Jesus,  obedience 
to  Jesus,— this  saves ;  nothing  else  does.  This  is  Christianity ;  nothing  else 
is.  This  is  orthodoxy. 

A  significant  part  of  our  divine  testimony,  and  for  which  we  will  have 
important  use  later  on,  is  that  the  members  of  the  apostolic  church  were 
called  disciples,  Christians ;  that  these  names  had  direct  bearing  on  the  re- 
lation of  the  person  to  the  Saviour.  Also  the  organization  was  called  the 
Church,  the  Church  of  Christ,  the  Church  of  God.  And  these  names  all 
referred  to  the  divine  relationship.  The  Church  stood  as  one  body  around 
the  cross,  even  as  Israel  was  one  body  gathered  about  Sinai.  Sects  and 
divisions  were  unknown.  The  Church  of  Christ  in  Jerusalem,  and  in 
Rome,  and  throughout  all  Asia  was  one,  without  subterfuge  or  sophistry, 
explanation  or  argument,  as  certainly  and  as  demonstrably  one  as  a  Ma- 
sonic lodge  here  in  Albion,  and  at  Moscow,  and  under  the  shadow  of  the 
pyramids,  is  the  one  Masonic  organization.  The  Church  is  His  body. 

With  a  singular  recreancy  to  their  trust,  counsel  have  not  attempted 
to  show  that  the  blessing  of  God  rested  on  Israel  when  she  became  a 
babel  of  conflicting  sects ;  nor  have  they  sought  to  justify  the  multitude  of 
denominations  of  to-day  by  citing  us  to  precedents  in  the  apostolic  days. 
The  divided  sects  of  Christendom,  with  their  human  names,  are  passing  out 
of  this  trial  of  what  constitutes  orthodoxy,  without  one  word  of  defense 
even  from  their  lawyers.  The  union  of  all  believers  in  the  one  body,  and 
the  wearing  of  the  one  name  alone,  goes  from  here  unchallenged.  The 
sacredness  of  that  single  body  and  its  divine  name  goes  unviolated.  The 
fact  is  a  ruinous  commentary  on  a  "body"  that  calls  itself  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church. 

We  have  now  ascertained  the  facts  concerning  the  establishment  of 
the  primitive  church;  that  the  church  is  the  body  of  which  Christ  is  the 
head,  and  that  He  is  not  a  head  with  many  bodies ;  that  the  apostles 
preached  Christ's  gospel  to  sinners,  and  that  they  did  not  preach  scholastic 
divinity  to  them ;  that  they  told  sinners  what  they  must  believe  and  do  to 
be  saved,  and  that  they  never  told  them  to  believe  in  or  obey  certain  form- 
ulated statements  of  theology  to  be  saved;  that  in  the  matter  of  name  they 


2T8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

designated  this  kingdom  by  its  divine  relationship,  and  in  no  other  way, 
that  they  spoke  of  the  members  thereof  by  their  divine  relationship,  and 
in  no  other  way;  that  this  primitive  church  received  the  inspired  teaching 
of  the  apostles  as  their  creed  and  discipline,  their  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice ;  that  they  never  received  anything  in  addition  thereto,  nor  in  inter- 
pretation thereof — it  was  this,  nothing  differing  from  this,  and  this  alone, 
that  governed  them. 

This  inspired  teaching  of  the  apostles  was  transcribed  and  constitute* 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  To  the  Christian  that  apostolic  transcrip- 
tion is  true  religion.  No  child  of  God  ever  questions  its  genuineness.  It 
is  not  justice  to  say  that  it  is  a  correct  presentation  of  Christianity.  It  is 
the  presentation  of  Christianity  itself.  It  is  Divinity  speaking  words 
whereby  we  may  be  saved.  It  is  the  divine  standard.  By  it  we  shall  be 
judged  at  the  last  day.  According  to  it  eternity  will  be  ruled.  It  reigns 
over  us  now,  and  aside  from  it  there  is  no  authority  in  divine  matters  in  all 
the  dominions  of  time. 

We  present  to  you  this  heavenly  standard  of  true  Christianity.  Now 
let  us  bring  forward  the  material  statements  of  our  oral  witnesses,  and  you 
shall  decide  how  each  faith  and  practice  and  doctrine,  here  declared  under 
the  solemn  obligations  of  an  oath  to  be  a  tenet  of  plaintiff's  church,  agrees 
with  that  confessed  authority. 

The  first  witness  we,  the  plaintiff,  called  was  J.  H.  Edwards.  He 
was  the  offending  person  at  Salem  Chapel,  having  preached  there  for  a 
year,  and  was  continuing  his  services  when  the  Protestant  trustees  closed 
the  chapel  doors  against  him.  Mr.  Edwards  is  pastor  of  the  Christian 
Church  at  Ligonier,  and  President  of  the  State  Ministerial  Association  of 
Indiana.  His  examination  was  quite  thorough  by  the  defense,  and  full 
latitude  was  given,  but  our  own  examination  was  short,  for  it  was  kept 
within  the  limit  of  the  question  at  issue — What  constitutes  orthodoxy  ? 
Little  space  is  required  to  pronounce  all  the  points  of  faith  and  practice  in 
true  Christianity.  Those  material  things  which  the  sinner  must  operate  in 
coming  to  the  church  are  very  few  in  number,  and  without  entangling  com- 
plications. Leaving  these  to  strike  the  sea  of  scholastic  theology,  we  find 
a  shoreless  waste.  You  may  discuss  over  it  forever,  and  come  back  know, 
ing  no  whit  more  of  the  elements  which  enters  into  salvation.  Doctrinal 
divinity  forms  no  necessary  link  between  the  sinner  and  his  Saviour. 

Among  the  first  questions  asked  of  this  witness,  Mr.  Edwards,  was 
regarding  the  plea  of  the  Christian  Church.  Every  church  has  a  plea,  or 
a  distinctive  feature.  He  answered  that  the  "plea  of  the  Church  was  for 
a  union  of  all  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  one  body,  with  the  word  of  God  as 
the  basis  of  that  union."  When  we  see  the  ranks  of  God's  professed 
people  distracted  by  factional  animosities,  and  desolated  by  conflicts  about 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  219 

doctrines,  I  think  there  can  be  no  diviner  plea  than  this  one.  Whatever 
else  may  be  wrong,  this  is  divinely  right.  If  such  a  church  is  wrong  in 
many  things,  the  operation  of  its  plea  is  so  self-corrective  it  will  early  come 
to  the  right.  This  plea  is  a  safe  one.  I  regard  with  great  admiration  the 
distinctive  plea  of  the  Presbyterian  Church — the  sovereignty  of  God.  I 
adore  that  plea  of  the  Methodist  Church — human  responsibility.  But  of 
vaster  import  to  a  dying  world,  and  of  greater  interest  to  struggling  Zion, 
is  this  other  plea  for  the  "union  of  Christ's  disciples  into  one  body,  with 
the  word  of  God  as  the  basis  of  that  union."  The  Master  himself  prayed 
that  all  his  followers  might  be  one,  that  the  world  might  believe.  This 
plea  goes  forth  freighted  with  the  supplicating  solicitude  of  the  Redeemer 
for  the  times  that  have  now  fallen  upon  us. 

Because  the  Christian  Church  has  refused  to  adopt  the  formulated 
statements  concerning  the  divine  personages,  you  have  heard  it  said  that 
we  denied  the  "  divine  persons."  This  has  been  asserted  to  be  our  posi- 
tion concerning  the  Saviour — that  he  was  received  in  a  practical  Unitarian 
belief.  To  settle  that  matter  at  once  and  forever,  I  asked  Mr.  Edwards : 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  Christian  Church  ilemands  of  its  members,  and  those 
coming  to  its  membership,  a  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  it  demands  a  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  a  divine  being. 

A.   It  does      It  always  demands  a   contession  of  faith  in  Him  as  the  Son  ol  God. 

Q.  Well,  would  or  would  not  the  Church  accept  one  as  a  member  who  would  re- 
fuse to  make  this  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  divine  Son  of  God  ? 

A.  It  would  not. 

Q.  He  would  not  be  accepted  as  a  member? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  faith  of  this  Church  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  here  made  a 
matter  of  oath.  The  witness  states  the  position  with  a  powerful  emphasis ; 
he  says  no  one  would  be  accepted  as  a  member  of  this  Church  who  would 
refuse  to  confess  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  divine  Son  of  God.  Standing  on  the 
solid  rock  beside  the  gate  of  the  walled  city  of  Csesarea,  Jesus  said,  "But 
whom  say  you  that  I  am?"  And  Simon  Peter  answered,  "Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  And  Jesus  said,  "On  this  rock  [on 
this  great  truth  ]  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  keys  of  this  kingdom  I 
will  give  into  your  hands."  So,  when  the  penitent  knocks  at  the  gate  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  no  entrance  is  given  him  unless  he  confess  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  then  on  the  Rock  of  Ages,  and  enters 
into  a  city  that  hath  foundations.  When  we  take  up  the  very  words  of 
Peter  and  thus  operate  them  in  our  practice,  we  are  standing  where  the 
Saviour's  blessing  has  been  written  for  eighteen  hundred  years. 

Mr.  Edwards  was  asked  if  his  Church  had  any  authoritative  bo«^  of 
faith  and  practice — one  which  its  members  were  compelled  to  obey.  He 


22O  Onr  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

said  they  had  such  a  creed  or  authoritative  book,  lie  said  it  was  "the 
Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible."  They  proffer  to  their 
members  no  man-made  creed,  no  articles  of  faith,  no  formulated  statements, 
no  deductions  ol  divinity,  no  theological  conclusions,  no  interpretations  of 
the  word ;  they  give  them  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the 
Bible.  They  reverently  believe  that  this  inspired  book  is  abundant  "  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect  and  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  ^oud  works." 

Here  are  three  significant  answers.  They  index  the  character  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Its  plea  among  the  churches  is  for  all  disciples  to  unite 
in  one  body,  with  the  word  of  God  as  the  basis  of  that  union.  It  proclaims 
Christ  the  divine  Son  of  God,  and  admits  no  one  as  a  member  who  refuses 
to  make  such  a  confession.  In  its  faith  and  practice  and  requirements  it 
takes  the  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible.  The  first  re- 
bukes the  divisions  in  Protestantism,  and  pleads  to  answer  the  Saviour's 
prayer  by  a  Christian  union.  The  second  announces  the  divine  and  God- 
.constructed  foundation  of  the  Church.  The  third  places  this  Church 
along-side  of  the  apostolic  church,  and  taking  up  its  book  speaks  where  it 
spoke,  and  is  silent  where  it  was  silent — a  sharp  reproof  to  current  church 
practices.  The  first  and  last  answers  several  this  Church  as  a  peculiar  sect : 
no  wonder  it  has  been  much  spoken  against.  As  the  Saviour  set  his  face 
against  the  Judaism  of  his  day,  so  has  this  Church  turned  his  voice  against 
the  sectarianism  of  this  day.  This  people  are  not  likely  to  be  confounded 
with  any  other  body.  They  are  a  separate  people.  They  have  a  singular 
plea  and  strange  and  unusual  practice.  They  have  rehabilitated  the  old 
Zion,  they  have  reproduced  the  old  forms,  they  have  restored  the  mother 
tongue  of  the  divine  family.  An  uncommon  and  separate  body,  it  is  ar- 
rayed at  the  bar  of  justice  under  charge  of  heresey;  it  never  stops  to  deny 
the  charge  but  assumes  its  falsity.  It  announces  its  position,  proclaims  its 
divine  correctness,  asserts  the  infidelities  of  its  assailants,  and  states  its  plea 
for  union  and  the  Bible  alone  with  such  clearness  and  power  that  the  fun- 
damental disobedience  and  will-worship  of  the  opposition  stand  forth  self- 
evident.  That  first  and  last  answer  is  a  defiant  challenge  to  all  churches 
to  come  up  and  compare  measures  with  the  divine  standard.  They  are  the 
two  boldest  things  that  have  been  said  to  the  world  and  the  church  in 
seventeen  hundred  years. 

The  next  phase  of  the  evidence  we  will  introduce  touches  the  greatest 
question  that  was  ever  propounded.  Of  all  the  problems  that  have 
troubled  human  thought,  none  have  been  greater  than  this  one — "What 
shall  a  man  do  to  be  saved?"  The  time  nevtr  was  when  good  men  did  not 
consider  it.  I  would  rather  be  certain  on  that  question  than  to  possess  all 
the  wisdom  of  all  the  schools  of  divinity  in  the  world.  A  fullness  of  learn- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  221 

ing  along  those  high  paths  may  grace  a  man  for  renown  among  his  fellows ; 
but  on  this  other  path,  filled  with  a  knowledge  of  salvation,  he  is  graced 
for  the  presence  of  his  God.  A  drowning  man  pays  no  care  as  to  whethei 
the  boat  coming  to  his  rescue  is  propelled  by  the  scientific  oar-strokes  of  a 
II  an  Ian  ;  he  only  asks  that  the  rescue  reach  him  before  he  goes  down  for- 
ever. No  soul  crushed  and  bleeding  under  the  conviction  of  sin  ever  stops 
to  discuss  theology.  A  bankrupt  soul  has  no  interest  in  dogmatic  divin- 
ity. He  wants  salvation  to  icach  him  before  he  goes  down.  The  purpose 
of  Christianity  is  to  bring  the  rescue  within  the  reach  of  the  sinner. 
Something  must  be  done  to  lift  him  out  of  hij  sins.  If  he  is  not  made 
separate  from  sin,  he  dies  forever.  Faith  in  a  doctrine  can  not  produce 
this  separation.  The  simplest  reason  perceives  that  it  can  not.  The  re- 
ception of  a  theory  can  not  avail.  A  profession  of  formulated  statements 
will  not  answer.  But  the  separation  must  be  made.  It  took  the  Father 
four  thousand  years,  with  all  the  wealth  of  inspiration,  and  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Son,  to  prepare  that  power.  God  had  but  one  thought  during  all  that 
tiresome  time,  namely,  to  separate  the  people  from  their  sins.  This  is  the 
all  of  salvation.  His  name  shall  be  called  Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  the  peo- 
ple from  their  sins.  When  the  orthodoxy  of  a  church  is  involved,  its  an- 
swer to  the  sinner's  question,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  from  my  sins?" 
is  the  trenchant  test  of  its  fidelity  to  Christ.  If  a  church  give  the  inspired 
answer  of  the  apostle  here,  it  is  not  likely  to  go  far  wrong  elsewhere.  A 
church  that  so  fully  understands  the  gospel  and  the  object  of  Christ's  sac- 
rifice, that  it  speaks  to  the  penitent  sinner  the  precise  words  that  were  ut- 
tered by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  inquiring  penitents,  occupies  the  chief  corner- 
stone of  orthodoxy.  It  is  in  harmony  with  the  eternal  purpose  which  God 
purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  was. 

This  new-born  son  of  God  must  continue  separate  from  sin.  The 
church,  to  maintain  its  harmony  with  the  eternal  purpose,  must  direct  this 
disciple  to  "continue  steadfast  in  the  apostles'  doctrine,  in  the  fellowship, 
in  the  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers."  Then  does  that  organization 
round  out  and  complete  its  harmony  with  the  gospel,  and  is  in  fact  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

That  we  might  know  the  conditions  of  salvation  presented  to  the 
sinner  by  this  Church,  Mr.  Edwards  was  asked:  "  What  does  the  Chris- 
tian Church  teach  as  the  first  necessary  step  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  that 
he  may  obtain  salvation?"  To  which  Mr.  Edwards  answered:  "That  he 
have  faith  in  God,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God." 

This  revealed  a  ground  where  the  defendant  stands  as  well  as  our- 
selves. The  witness  was  then  asked : 

Q.  What  does  that  Church  next  require  as  necessary? 

A.  It  teaches,  and  therefore  necessarily  requires,  that   the  sinner  repent  of   his 


222  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

sins — his  former  sins — and    turn  to  live  a  life  of  holiness  and  virtue,  according  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Scriptures. 

Let  me  give  you  the  questions  and  answers  as  they  appear  in  the  evi- 
dence, as  follows : 

Q.  What  next  does  that  Church  require  as  necessary  ? 

A.  The  sinner  having  believed  in  God  and  in  Christ,  and  having  repented  of  his 
sins,  and  turned  to  live  a  life  of  righteousness  and  virtue,  the  Church  next  requires  that 
he  confeM  Christ  before  men,  for  the  reason  that  the  Saviour  has  said,  "  Every  one, 
therefore,  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  before  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven."  ( Matt.  x.  32,  33.) 

Q.  What  next  does  that  Church  require  ? 

A.  It  next  requires  that  the  sinner  submit  himself  to  the  command  which  was 
given  by  the  Saviour  in  the  commission— the  first  half  of  the  commission — "  Make  dis- 
ciples of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Q.  What  next  does  that  Church  require? 

A.  That  he  conform  to  the  second  half  of  the  Saviour's  commission — "  Teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have  commanded  you,"  thus  living  prayerful 
and  pious  lives,  continuing  that  obedience  until  the  close  of  life. 

Q.  After  the  sinner  has  had  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  has  repented  of  his  sins, 
and  has  confessed  Christ  as  the  divine  Son  of  God,  and  has  been  baptized,  what  is 
the  teaching  of  that  Church  as  to  the  effect  of  these  things  upon  the  condition  of  the 
sinner? 

A.  It  teaches  that  he  is  then  received  into  the  fellowship  of  God,  and  becomes  his 
child,  and  that,  so  far  as  the  sins  of  his  past  life  are  concerned,  they  are  remembered 
against  him  no  more. 

Q.  That  process  makes  him  a  Christian  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  ought  to  be  received  into  the  Church. 

Do  these  answers  agree  with  the  practice  of  the  apostles?  There  is 
no  mistaking  what  they  mean.  They  state  the  conditions  the  Church  im- 
poses upon  the  sinner  coming  to  Christ.  They  agree  with  the  apostles,  or 
they  do  not  agree  with  them.  If  they  agree  with  the  apostolic  practice, 
they  are  right.  If  they  do  not  so  agree,  they  are  wrong.  Are  they  right, 
or  are  they  wrong? 

Mr.  Edwards  was  then  asked  : 

Q.  Did  the  Saviour  and  the  apostles  ever  require  any  other  belief,  and  acts  of  obe- 
dience, as  you  term  them,  as  prerequisites  to  membership  in  the  Church,  than  faith  in 
Christ,  confession  of  Him,  repentance  of  sin,  and  baptism  ? 

And  his  answer  was,  "  I  know  of  none,  sir." 

Is  it  a  fact,  that  there  is  any  other?  If  there  is,  then  we  fall  short  of 
the  divine  requirement.  We  present  no  other  terms  to  the  sinner  on  his 
coming  to  Christ.  We  have  never  required  more;  we  never  accept  less. 
To  be  wrong  here  would  be  a  grievous  heresy.  An  awful  responsibility 
rests  on  the  Church :  that  it  give  the  conditions  of  divine  acceptance  with 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  223 

all  the  certainty  and  clearness  with  which  they  were  proclaimed  by  the 
apostles. 

Mr.  Post  testified  on  this  subject.  Being  pastor  of  defendant's  church, 
his  statements  are  valuable.  An  extract  had  been  read  from  Mr.  Camp- 
bell on  this  subject,  and  Mr.  Post  had  pronounced  it  unsound.  It  was 
where  Mr.  Campbell  had  said  that  "neither  praying,  singing,  etc.,  was 
the  converting  act ;"  and  we  asked,  "  Do  you  regard  praying,  and  reading, 
and  singing,  as  preliminary  to  coming  to  Christ?"  Mr.  Post  answered, 
"  Yes,  sir." 

We  then  inquired,  "  Will  you  tell  us  of  any  place  where  the  apostles 
ever  demanded  praying,  and  reading,  and  singing,  as  preliminary  to  com- 
ing to  Christ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  these  things  were  enjoined  after  one 
was  baptized  into  Christ,  and  never  required  of  any  one  outside  of  Christ's 
body?"  He  answered,  "I  think  the  Apostle  Peter  commanded  them  to 
repent."  That  answer  was  an  unworthy  avoidance  of  a  direct  question. 
Witness  and  ourselves  are  agreed  on  repentance.  It  was  now  necessary  to 
push  Mr.  Post;  and  we  said:  "Did  he  not  command  them  to  repent,  be- 
lieve, and  be  baptized;  and  was  that  not  alone  their  duty,  if  they  believed 
in  the  New  Testament?"  And  he  answered,  "Well,  perhaps  it  was." 

This  veteran  preacher  throws  an  uncertainty  around  an  act  which  is 
the  most  solemn  passage  in  life,  more  solemn  than  death,  and  upon  which 
God  himself  has  spoken.  It  was  necessary  to  drive  this  witness,  if  possi- 
ble, to  a  positive  answer.  So  we  once  more  approached  him  :  "  Well,  sir, 
is  n't  it  so  declared  by  the  apostles?  And  as  the  counsel  has  asked  whether 
or  not  it  is  orthodox,  and  you  have  answered,  I  will  ask  you  for  a  single 
passage  of  the  Bible  wherein  the  statement  is  contradicted  ?"  And  he  an- 
swered, "Perhaps  I  am  at  a  loss  to  recall  any  passage." 

When  driven  into  straits,  this  man  hesitated  to  swear  untruthfully ;  but 
he  refused  to  swear  to  the  truth,  and  so  he  balanced  his  conscience  on  a 
"perhaps."  Do  you  believe  this  witness?  He  knows  whether  there  is 
any  such  a  passage  or  not.  If  there  had  been  one,  do  n't  you  think  he 
would  have  cited  it?  That  is  what  he  is  here  for.  When  a  man's  secta- 
rianism won't  let  him  swear  to  the  truth,  his  sectarianism  has  become  a 
crime.  There  is  no  such  passage. 

The  terms  of  pardon  offered  the  sinner  by  the  Christian  Church  are 
those  presented  by  all  the  so-called  orthodox  churches.  They  may  add 
much  more  in  many  instances,  and  that  much  more  was  offered  as  a  doc- 
trine in  former  years;  but  our  presentation  of  the  gospel  has  caused  every 
one  of  these  churches  to  modify  their  additions  to  the  gospel,  and  to-day 
you  can  enter  any  one  of  these  by  complying  with  the  gospel  requirements 
which  we  preach.  In  support  of  this  fact,  we  took  defendant's  Church 
itself,  and  he  who  haa  made  affidavit  against  us.  We  asked  Mr.  Post:  "If 


224.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Ciinl  Courts. 

a  candidate  expresses  a  belief  in  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  believes  in  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  !•.•• 
pents,  would  you  admit  him  into  the  Church  ?"  He  answered  that  he 
would. 

"  Would  you  admit  him  without  baptism  ;  is  not  baptism  one  of  the 
requisites  of  admission  into  your  Church?"  And  he  answered,  "It  is 
really  a  prerequisite  to  Christian  duty." 

When  we  asked,  "  Would  you  regard  a  church  as  orthodox,  Mr.  Post, 
that  did  not  accept  the  rite  of  baptism,  or  would  not  administer  it  to 
the  sinner?"  he  answered,  "I  don't  think  I  would  regard  it  as  ortho- 
dox." 

The  defendant's  church  itself  here  asserts  that  it  receives  members  on 
their  divine  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism.  Then  they  receive  members 
just  as  we  do.  Even  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  concerning  which  so 
much  has  been  said,  the  defendant's  representative  head  here  pronounces 
those  who  will  not  baptize  as  unorthodox.  The  acceptance  of  the  divint 
terms  of  amnesty  signals  the  sinner's  pardon,  and  return  to  Christ.  The 
reception  of  these  terms  places  the  coming  one  into  a  saved  state,  and  ob- 
ligates his  life  to  a  faithful  compliance  therewith.  Exact  compliance  with 
the  terms  proclaimed  is  God's  test  of  our  fidelity.  We  bring  the  penitent 
into  the  Church  on  these  terms.  There  is  no  passage  in  the  gospel  that 
requires  more  than  we  require.  No  case  where  the  apostles  inducted  per- 
sons into  the  Church  where  they  required  less  than  we  require.  We  give 
an  exact  compliance  to  the  terms.  Now,  we  have  not  only  the  evidence  of 
the  divine  standard  to  the  correctness  of  our  position,  but  the  prosecuting 
defense  asserts  that  its  own  Church  will  receive  members  on  these  terms  as 
we  do!  Since  1823,  we  have  combated  the  Protestant  world  because  it 
did  not  enforce  an  exact  compliance  with  the  gospel  conditions  of  pardon. 
After  sixty  years,  one  denomination  has  forced  us  into  the  courts  to  prove 
our  correctness;  and  that  denomination,  by  its  representative,  we  put  on 
the  stand,  and  under  oath  it  becomes  a  witness  that  confirms  and  proves 
our  practice. 

Having  established  that  our  induction  of  members  into  the  Church 
conforms  to  the  apostolic  practice,  we  will  consider  some  of  the  things 
that  naturally  arise  in  such  an  investigation  as  this.  The  witnesses,  Revs. 
Post  and  Smith,  clung  with  tenacity  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It 
•was  manifestly  their  consuming  thought.  If  the  formulated  statements  of 
the  Trinity  are  to  be  received,  then  the  impression  they  sought  to  convey 
concerning  us  is  true.  But  the  formulated  statements  of  the  Trinity  are 
not  correct,  and  they  are  not  to  be  received.  We  may  justly  be  filled  with 
a  grave  apprehension  of  this  doctrine;  with  a  singular  persistence  it  has 
sowed  discord  and  desolation  in  the  Church  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  The 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  225 

Council  of  Nice  was  called  in  A.  D.  325,  to  settle  the  dispute  between  Arius 
and  Alexander  concerning  the  Trinity.  The  formulated  statement  was 
there  originated.  It  was  unknown  in  the  Church  until  that  time.  Arius 
and  his  dissenters  were  expelled  from  the  Church,  and  the  ban  of  heresy 
placed  on  them.  It  was  the  first  time  the  officers  of  the  universal  Church 
had  cast  their  "  construction  "  of  Bible  teaching  into  the  mold  of  church  au- 
thority. Of  necessity  it  gathered  about  it  other  "constructions"  which 
also  became  authority. 

And  thus  it  was  that  the  first  creed  grew  into  existence.  An  unhallowed 
thing,  it  required  an  unhallowed  power  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  and  with  it 
the  Church  soon  lost  its  simplicity  of  faith  and  practice,  and  crystallized 
into  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  new  created  Church  waged  a  per- 
secution  for  its  cardinal  doctrine  until  533,  when  Justinian  declared  John, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  the  sole  and  effectual  corrector  of  all  heretics,  and  or< 
dered  the  armies  of  Rome  to  obey  the  Holy  See.  The  Vandals,  the  Q»trogoths, 
and  the  Lombards,  had  for  the  most  part  espoused  the  Arian  cause ;  and  on 
the  above  authorities  (Bower's  History  of  the  Popes,  Vol.  II,  pp.  335,  336; 
Gibbon,  Vol.  V.  pp.  127-158),  Belisarius  led  the  Roman  army  against  the 
Vandals,  and  utterly  plucked  them  up.  In  539  the  same  fate  befell  the 
Ostrogoths.  And  in  568  the  Lombards  met  a  like  disaster.  Which  is  all 
in  exact  fulfillment  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  Daniel's  prophecy  as  to  what 
the  Little  Horn  [the  Catholic  Church]  would  do  regarding  three  provinces. 
That  Church  has  never  ceased  its  aggressive  policy  on  this  doctrine.  When 
the  Reformers  came,  they  unfortunately  brought  this  dogma  along  with 
them,  and  the  war  still  wages.  Messrs.  Post  and  Smith  manifested  that 
they  thought  more  of  a  man's  acceptance  of  the  Nicene  statement  of 
the  Trinity  than  they  did  of  his  obeying  the  specific  commands  of  Christ. 
That  Nicene  statement  of  325  was  written  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  too 
late.  To  believe  in  the  Trinity  is  one  thing,  to  accept  the  formulated  the- 
ology thereon  is  quite  another.  One  witness  of  ours  said  in  answer,  "Yes, 
the  Church  believes  in  the  Trinity  ;  for  John  says,  '  There  are  three  who  bear 
record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  these  three  are 
one.'"  He  was  then  asked  "if  the  Church  believed  and  preached  this 
statement,  'God  the  Father,'"  and  answered  "Yes.  The  Bible  continu- 
ally uses  the  terms  'Father'  and  'God'  interchangeably." 

Q.  Do  you  teach  this  statement,  God  the  Son  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  for  John  says,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  the  Word  wa'  vith 
God,  the  Word  was  God."  And  the  prophet  says,  "  To  us  a  child  is  born,  to  us>  So«» 
is  given,  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,"  etc. 

Q.  Do  you  teach  this  statement,  God  the  Holy  Ghost? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why? 

A.   Because  there  is  no  such  statement  in  the  Bible. 


226  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

Q.  But  may  it  not  be  a  proper  construction  from  what  is  said  in  the  word  of  Godt 
A.  No,  sir;  by  no  means.  No  such  construction  should  ever  be  pUced,  by  the 
teachings  of  a  church,  upon  anything  in  the  Bible.  Constructions  upon  the  Bible — be- 
ing wise  above  that  which  is  written — have  desolated  the  Church  these  fifteen  hundred 
years.  The  Bible  contains  what  the  apostles  and  divinely  inspired  writers  said  upon 
these  points;  it  is  our  duty,  when  we  speak  as  a  church  of  God,  to  speak  their  speech. 
This  is  right  procedure ;  it  can  not  be  wrong. 

After  Mr.  George  W.  Chapman  had  said  that  he  believed  in  the  Trin- 
ity, counsel  asked  him  if  he  believed  in  three  Gods ;  to  which  answer  was 
made:  "I  do  not  want  to  be  understood  to  say  that  there  are  three  Gods. 
I  want  to  be  understood  to  say  that  there  are  three  distinct  intelligences 
united  in  one  Godhead.  Being  thus  united,  as  explained,  there  are  three 
manifestations  of  the  Divine  Nature." 

That  is  one  of  the  best  statements  of  the  Godhead  I  ever  heard.  The 
testimony  of  Mr.  Chapman  is  wonderfully  pertinent  to  the  issue.  Nearly 
every  one  of  his  important  answers  is  given  in  the  very  words  of  the 
Scriptures.  They  have  the  old  Jerusalem  ring  about  them. 

The  Bible  has  no  precise  expression  on  the  Spirit's  Godhead.  The 
personal  Godhead  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  object  of  worship  was  not  an- 
nounced until  the  latter  part  of  the  Fifth  Century ;  ana  this  announcement 
was  at  the  city  of  Constantinople.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  an  intelligent  Spirit. 
It  is  an  entity,  a  person.  It  can  see  and  hear,  be  grieved,  vexed,  and  lied 
to ;  it  can  warn,  constrain,  comfort,  and  talk.  We  accept  and  believe 
every  word  said  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  Spirit,  its  personality,  di- 
vinity, and  Godhead. 

Messrs.  Post  and  Smith  made  the  Trinity  the  very  core  of  orthodoxy. 
They  were  lax  on  every  other  point;  but  their  devotion  to  the  Trinity 
amounted  to  a  passion.  We  believe  one  ought  to  have  correct  views  here ; 
and  if  they  are  "the  very  pillar  of  orthodoxy,"  we  can  assert  our  position 
with  great  assurance.  The  testimony  shows  that  we  reject  every  view  of 
the  Trinity  that  does  not  come  expressed  in  the  very  words  of  the  Spirit 
itself.  This  is  perfect  fidelity  to  the  divine  standard. 

Mr.  Edwards  was  asked,  "What  is  the  teaching  of  your  Church  in 
reference  to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  conversion  of  the  sinner  ?" 
His  answer  was,  "The  gospel  is  the  power  of  Go6  unto  salvation."  If 
there  is  any  influence  of  the  Spirit  apart  from  the  word,  upon  the  sinner's 
heart,  the  Scriptures  have  nowhere  recorded  it.  The  defense  believes  that 
the  sinner  is  enlightened,  converted,  and  sanctified  bv  tne  direct  impact  of 
the  Spirit.  This  is  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  Protestantism  which  we  most 
positively  deny.  The  defense  failed  to  produce  any  evidence  to  support 
their  theory.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  can  be  adduced  to 
show  any  extraordinary  and  direct  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  sinner.  The 
Spirit  operates  on  the  sinner  only  through  the  Word  of  Truth.  Thus  op- 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  22? 

crating,  it  is,  indeed,  the  Spirit's  work  that  converts  and  sanctifies  man- 
kind. Mr.  Campbell  uttered  a  great  truth  when  he  said,  "  I  would  not, 
sir,  value  at  the  price  of  a  single  mill  the  religion  of  any  man,  as  respects 
the  grand  affair  of  eternal  life,  whose  religion  is  not  begun,  carried  on, 
and  completed  by  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  We  believe 
that.  We  believe  that  this  gospel,  which  the  Spirit  has  presented  us,  is 
able  to  convince  and  convert  the  world.  Hence  we  speak  where  the  Bible 
ipeaks  and  are  silent  where  it  is  silent.  Again  we  present  perfect  fidelity 
to-the  divine  standard. 

There  was  some  testimony  from  several  of  the  witnesses,  on  total  de- 
pravity, the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  eternal  decrees,  but  these  need 
not  engage  our  attention.  Whatever  attention  they  have  won  in  the  past 
has  brought  distraction  to  the  house  of  God.  There  has  been  a  great 
striving  over  these  things,  to  no  profit.  Suppose  the  doctrine  of  depravity 
is  true  in  all  the  fullness  of  its  scholastic  statement.  Has  the  belief  of  it 
ever  contributed  to  the  salvation  of  a  soul  ?  Was  belief  in  hereditary  de- 
pravity required  by  the  apostles  as  a  condition  of  salvation?  Was  it  pre- 
scribed in  any  of  the  letters  as  a  grace  with  which  the  Christian  must 
adorn  himself?  Does  a  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  tend  to  work  righteous- 
ness in  a  man?  We  must  successively  answer,  No!  If  this  doctrine  is  not 
an  operating  force  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  it  is  of  no  practical  value. 
Grant  the  doctrine  to  be  true,  if  these  questions  are  answered  in  the  nega- 
tive, there  is  no  salvation  in  it.  If  there  is  no  salvation  in  it,  it  is  not  a  proper 
question  to  be  considered  in  the  great  issues  of  this  trial. 

These  questions  fairly  test  the  value  of  any  doctrine  in  theology.  Let 
us  present  them  to  the  "  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit  on  the  sinner's 
heart."  Has  the  belief  of  this  doctrine  ever  contributed  to  the  salvation 
of  a  soul  ?  Was  a  belief  in  the  Spirit's  direct  operation  on  the  sinner  re- 
quired by  the  apostles  as  a  condition  to  salvation?  Was  it  prescribed  in 
any  of  the  letters  as  a  grace  with  which  the  Christian  must  adorn  himself? 
Does  a  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  tend  to  work  righteousness  in  a  man  ? 
To  each  of  these  questions  we  must  answer,  No!  This  doctrine  was  never 
placed  as  an  operating  force  in  the  scheme  of  redemption.  There  is  no 
salvation  in  it. 

Direct  the  same  interrogatories  to  the  "  formulated  statement  of  the 
Trinity."  Has  the  belief  of  it  ever  contributed  to  the  salvation  of  a  soul? 
Was  belief  in  the  creedal  statements  of  the  Trinity  required  by  the  apostles 
as  a  condition  of  salvation  ?  Was  it  prescribed  in  any  of  the  letters  as  a 
grace  with  which  the  Christian  must  adorn  himself?  Does  a  knowledge  of 
the  doctrine  tend  to  work  righteousness  in  a  man?  And  to  each  of  these 
we  must  answer,  No !  Christ  never  placed  this  doctrine  as  an  operating  force 
in  the  scheme  of  redemption.  Therefore  there  can  be  no  salvation  in  it. 


228  Our  Orthodoxy  in  tlie  Civil  Courts. 

Mr.  Edwards  testified,  and  Mr.  Carpenter  corroborated  him,  that  "on 
such  doctrines  as  the  Trinity,  predestination,  original  sin,  the  decrees,  etc., 
we  are  content  to  allow  men  to  hold  such  opinion  as  seems  good  to  them, 
without  putting  them  under  the  ban  of  heterodoxy."  On  all  these  doc- 
trines we  leave  the  child  of  God  to  the  same  liberty  Christ  and  the  apostles 
extended  him.  No  one  of  these  doctrines  is  ever  in  the  Scriptures,  by 
command,  practice,  or  implication,  connected  with  the  conversion  of  the 
sinner  or  a  righteous  life.  Any  church  that  makes  the  formulated  state- 
ments of  these  doctrines  a  test  of  fellowship  has  usurped  authority  in  the 
house  of  God,  and  has  added  to  the  things  herein  written.  The  Christian 
Church  does  not  make  a  test  of  these  doctrines,  it  does  not  recognize  or- 
thodoxy as  connected  with  them,  it  does  not  place  them  at  the  church 
door  and  say,  "You  can  not  enter  unless  you  bear  them  in  with  you."  It 
says,  "On  these  profound  and  intricate  subjects  have  correct  views ;  you 
had  better  avoid  constructions  and  stick  to  the  text,  speaking  your  faith  in 
these  things  in  the  exact  words  of  the  Scriptures."  This  is  our  practice. 
On  all  of  these  great  dogmas  we  again  present  perfect  fidelity  to  the  divine 
standard. 

Counsel  was  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  we  determined  the  construe- 
tion  to  be  placed  on  any  passage  of  the  Scriptures.  Mr.  Carpenter  replied 
to  such  a  question  that  we  settled  differences  as  other  churches.  "When 
they  arraign  a  man  and  try  him,  they  do  it  by  their  standard,  the  creed — 
as  David  Swing  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  Dr.  Thomas  by  the  Methodists; 
and  when  we  arraign  a  man  and  try  him,  we  do  it  by  our  creed,  but  that 
is  the  Bible  itself." 

Then  it  was  asked,  if  the  particular  congregation  where  a  difference 
arose  was  the  ultimate  judge  in  that  case.  He  answered:  "Well,  as  we 
have  never  had  any  such  case  (and  we  are  not  likely  to  have),  any  answer 
I  might  give  would  only  be  an  anticipation  of  it ;  but,  to  give  my  own 
opinion,  I  presume,  as  we  have  the  congregational  form  ol  church  govern- 
ment, that  it  would  fall  to  the  congregation  where  the  difference  should 
arise  to  handle  it,  either  by  its  own  membership,  or  by  other  brethren 
whom  it  might  select  to  do  so." 

Then  came  the  question  that  was  to  produce  a  demonstration  of  the 
attorney's  statement  of  the  case,  on  the  opening  of  the  trial.  He  asserted 
that  we  were  creedless,  without  helm  or  rudder  in  the  religious  world,  and 
that  our  preachers  taught  all  sorts  of  doctrine,  and  that  we  were  destitute 
of  any  settled  faith,  or  rules  of  interpretation.  He  contended  that  a 
church  occupying  our  position  would  constantly  be  found  in  a  wrangle  of 
differences;  that  it  was  systemless  and  unorganized,  and  could  never 
arrive  at  any  uniform  teaching  or  practice.  With  all  the  assurance  of  a 
lawyer  that  means  to  overwhelm  a  witness,  the  question  was  hurled  at  Mr. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Cvurts.  229 

Carpenter:  "  Do  you  know  of  any  such  thing  as  a  serious  difference  in 
doctrine  having  arisen  at  any  time?" 

And  to  the  confusion  of  the  lawyer  the  answer  was  given :  "No,  sir; 
we  have  never  been  troubled  in  that  direction,  and  we  are  not  likely  to  be. 
We  take  the  Bible  as  our  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  let  it  do  its  own 
teaching ;  we  have  never  been  troubled,  to  my  knowledge,  about  the  ques- 
tion of  doctrine  so-called." 

It  was  determined  to  risk  another  approach  :  "  Do  you  mean  to  say 
that  in  your  Church,  there  is  no  uniform  opinion — that  one  may  have  his 
own  opinion,  no  matter  what  it  is?" 

Now,  the  answer  had  no  such  meaning,  for  if  we  had  had  no  seriout 
differences,  we  had  a  pronounced  uniformity  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
presented  to  the  world  an  unparalleled  system  in  our  organization,  but 
let  the  witness  answer:  "  No,  sir.  In  matters  essential  to  salvation  there 
must  be  uniformity  of  opinion  ;  in  the  things  not  necessary  to  salvation  the 
widest  latitude  and  freedom  are  granted ;  the  whole  thing  hinges  "upon 
the  relation  these  things  sustain  to  salvation,  whether  they  are  necessary  or 
not  necessary  thereto." 

The  entire  line  of  questioning  on  biblical  interpretation  was  conducted 
on  the  presumption  that  the  primitive  church  did  not  present  a  perfect 
model,  and  that  the  experience  of  the  ages  had  enabled  men  to  improve 
on  the  revealed  plan.  The  defense  evidently  believes  it  a  necessity  for 
church  existence,  that  articles  of  doctrine  be  drawn  from  the  Scriptures, 
and  surrounded  with  a  corresponding  form  of  church  organization.  Hence 
they  regard  the  divided  condition  of  the  religious  household  as  a  prudent 
and  economic  measure  that  brought  order  out  of  chaos,  and  a  definite 
plan  out  of  a  confused  generalization  ;  that  there  must  ever  be  broad  dif- 
ferences in  the  constructions  placed  upon  much  of  the  divine  teaching  ; 
that  each  of  these  paths  of  construction  grows  its  own  peculiar  church 
practices ;  that  this  affords  a  house  of  refuge  for  every  shape  of  doctrine, 
and  the  harmony  of  a  government  that  has  naturally  grown  up  under  it ; 
that  thus,  the  gospel,  to  be  of  practical  value,  necessitates  religious  de- 
nominations. This  position  is  right  or  wrong.  If  right,  we  are  wrong. 
If  wrong,  then  the  whole  fabric  of  denominationalism  is  insecure,  and 
must  eventually  fall. 

It  has  been  twice  demonstrated  to  be  wrong.  For  sixty  years  we  have 
existed  as  a  people ;  our  preachers  and  members  have  been  scattered  every- 
where preaching  the  gospel ;  they  have  gone  forth  without  any  creed  or 
"constructed  doctrine,"  but  with  the  gospel  alone.  We  are  to-day  the 
third  most  numerous  religious  body  on  our  continent,  and  we  have  never 
had  any  serious  difference  of  doctrine  at  any  time.  We  have  demonstrated 
their  theory  to  be  wrong.  The  primitive  church  was  wiuiout  a  creed  or 


2jo  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

"  constructed  doctrine "  for  more  than  two  hundred  years.  The  apostles 
and  early  proclaimers  bore  to  the  world  nothing  but  the  gospel  alone ; 
false  teachers  came  in,  but  they  went  out;  it  was  the  most  harmonious, 
prosperous,  and  glorious  era  of  the  Church,  and  they  never  had  any  seri- 
ous difference  of  doctrine  at  any  time.  The  primitive  church  demonstrated 
this  theory  to  be  false.  Can  the  defense  present  such  a.  record.  In  the 
whole  array  of  denominations  is  there  one  but  what  has  been  torn  and 
rived  by  "serious  differences"?  And  these  factions  have  again  warred  and 
separated,  until  there  are  now  more  than  five  hundred  denominations. 
Mr.  Chapman  uttered  a  truth  when  he  said  that  the  Scriptures  were  not 
susceptible  of  more  interpretations  than  are  put  upon  human  creeds. 

The  primitive  cause  did  not  have  its  unity  and  prosperity  distracted 
until  men  sought  to  enforce  "constructed  doctrine"  upon  the  churches. 
Since  that  hour  constructions  have  multiplied,  and  each  new  construction 
has  brought  a  difference,  and  every  difference  has  increased  trouble  in  the 
house  of  God.  Human  creeds,  composed  of  constructed  doctrines,  for  the 
purpose  of  accommodating  differing  views,  are  pernicious  in  theory,  and 
injurious  to  religion  in  practice.  That  part  of  the  Bible  that  treats  on  the 
things  necessary  to  salvation  does  not  require  a  "construction.".  All  the 
statements  concerning  the  necessary  matters  in  salvation  are  plain  com- 
mandments of  things  to  be  done  by  the  sinner.  Personally,  I  feel  that 
God  would  not  be  good  in  placing  the  words  of  eternal  life  in  such  a  dark- 
ened way  that  interpretation  of  them  would  be  necessary.  If  such  be  the 
fact,  the  apostle  made  a  mistake  when  he  spoke  of  the  gospel  as  being 
God's  revealed  plan  of  salvation.  Neither  do  I  feel  that  He  is  all-wise,  if 
a  "  construction  "  be  required  upon  these  essentials  of  salvation ;  because 
experience  has  shown  that  finite  men  have  differed  in  the  construction  to 
be  placed  upon  these  things,  and  by  the  conflicts  growing  out  of  these  dif- 
ferent constructions  the  Church  has  been  desolated  for  fifteen  centuries. 
On  the  matter  of  human  depravity,  the  direct  operation  of  the  Spirit,  the 
eternal  decrees,  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  the  whole  array  of  intricate 
and  profound  theological  problems,  known  as  scholastic  divinity,  the  Bible 
has  not  given  a  formulated  statement,  nor  required  a  specific  faith.  The 
members  of  the  primitive  church,  doubtless,  differed  upon  these  great 
questions.  As  they  have  no  necessary  connection  with  salvation,  God  has 
left  us  free  to  whatever  opinion  we  may  prefer.  And  all  the  statements 
concerning  the  necessary  matters  in  salvation  are  plain  commandments  of 
things  to  be  done  by  the  sinner. 

You,  no  doubt,  were  much  interested  in  the  testimony  on  baptism.  We 
rejoice  that  you  had  the  privilege  of  hearing  our  position  upon  this  subject 
stated  from  the  witness  stand,  and  supported  by  all  the  solemnity  of  a  judi- 
cial oath.  I  am  glad  we  got  into  court,  so  our  standing  on  this  question 


Our  Orttwdoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  231 

may  be  established  by  operation  of  law.  For  more  than  half  a  century, 
every  bigot  that  has  assailed  us,  every  unchristian  feeling  that  has  been 
aroused,  every  charge  of  heterodoxy,  every  prejudice  agitated,  every 
slander  propagated,  every  malign  influence  exerted  against  us  has  been 
along  the  line  of  the  baptismal  lie.  Here,  now,  in  this  evidence,  you  have 
seen  what  our  teaching  and  practice  is,  and  its  conformity  to  the  divine 
plan  passes  unquestioned. 

Witness  Carpenter  was  asked:  "  Does  the  Church  believe  the  teach- 
ing  that  immersion  alone,  immersion  without  faith,  without  repentance, 
without  confession,  avails  anything  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul?" 

Did  the  witness  hesitate  ?  Did  he  halt  and  explain  ?  His  answer  for- 
ever settles  whatever  doubt  you  may  have  had  on  this  question.  His  answer 
was:  "No,  sir;  the  Church  believes  and  teaches  that  such  a  baptism 
would  be  blasphemy  before  God."  And  the  Church  everywhere  lifts  its 
voice  and  adds  to  that  answer  its  indignant  emphasis. 

The  witness  was  then  asked  about  the  necessity  of  baptism.  He  an- 
swered :  "  It  becomes  necessary  because  it  is  one  of  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  the  efficacy  to  save  from  sin  is  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  which  is  appropriated  and  applied  to  the  conscience  by  obedi- 
ence to  His  commands." 

The  witness  read  from  Mr.  Campbell's  debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  p.  555: 
"  While  we  regard  immersion,  or  Christian  baptism,  as  a  wise,  benevolent, 
and  useful  institution,  we  neither  disparage  nor  underrate  a  new  heart, 
repentance,  or  faith;  nay,  we  teach  with  clearness  and  definiteness  that, 
unpreceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  it  is  of  no  value  whatsoever."  And 
again,  on  p.  678,  he  says:  "You  may  have  heard  me  say  here  (and  the 
whole  country  may  have  read  it  many  a  time),  that  a  seven-fold  immersion 
in  the  river  Jordan,  or  any  other  water,  ivitliout  a  previous  change  of  heart,  -will 
avail  nothing,  without  a  genuine  faith  and  repentance.  Nor  would  the 
most  strict  conformity  to  all  the  forms  and  usages  of  the  most  perfect 
church  order ;  the  most  exact  observance  of  all  the  ordinances,  without 
personal  faith,  and  moral  righteousness — without  a  new  heart,  hallowed 
lips,  and  a  holy  life,  profit  any  man  in  reference  to  eternal  salvation." 

Mr.  Campbell  believed  this  and  taught  it  all  his  life.  Mr.  Carpenter 
believes  it ;  and  teaches  it,  as  an  evangelist  in  Indiana.  Mr.  Edwards  be- 
lieves it ;  and  teaches  it,  as  a  preacher.  The  preachers  of  the  Church  every- 
where believe  and  teach  it.  There  is  not  a  member  of  the  Christian 
Church  anywhere  but  believes  it  with  his  whole  heart,  and  teaches  it  with 
all  his  zeal. 

When  Mr.  Carpenter  retired  from  the  stand,  we  rested.  We  had  in- 
troduced Messrs.  Edwards,  Chapman,  Owen,  and  Carpenter.  Their  evi- 
dence was  clear,  direct,  and  convincing.  They  were  questioned  upon 


232  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

every  shade  of  religious  belief  and  practice,  and  each  question  received  a 
straightforward  answer;  not  one  was  avoided,  not  one.  The  testimony  of 
Edwards,  Chapman,  and  Owen  harmonized  as  perfectly  as  ever  did  three 
witnesses  in  a  court-room.  Mr.  Carpenter,  who  did  not  arrive  at  the  trial 
until  we  had  despaired  of  his  coming — we  having  virtually  closed  our  case, 
and  the  defense  was  preparing  to  call  their  witnesses ;  who  did  not  hear  a 
word  of  the  evidence ;  who  went  on  to  the  stand  almost  as  soon  as  he  en- 
tered the  room;  who  was  put  through  a  thorough  direct  examination; 
who  submitted  to  a  three  hours'  cross-examination,  most  searching  in  its 
character,  and  forceful  in  its  manner,  in  which  an  effort  was  made  to  create 
a  conflict  in  the  testimony,  or  secure  the  abandonment  of  a  position  that 
had  been  taken — this  man,  I  say,  who  had  left  his  sick-bed,  and  had 
come  here  in  the  integrity  of  his  Christian  devotion ;  who  stepped  from 
the  cars  to  the  witness-box ;  who  swore  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the 
Church  in  every  county  in  the  State,  as  its  State  Evangelist  for  these 
twelve  years;  who  spoke  knowing  its  universally  established  faith  and 
practice,  did  not  conflict  with  a  witness  that  had  gone  before  him ;  he 
testified  to  the  faith  they  had'uttered,  to  the  practices  they  had  described, 
to  the  principles  they  had  enunciated ;  he  corroborated  and  emphasized 
every  answer  they  gave ;  he  did  not  differ  from  a  single  one,  he  reaffirmed 
every  one — every  one. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Post  attended  as  the  prosecuting  witness  for  the  de- 
fense. He  is  the  pastor  of  Salem  Chapel  Protestant  Church,  and  wrote  with 
his  own  hand  the  notice  which  forbid  Mr.  Edwards  the  use  of  that  pulpit, 
and  closed  the  doors  of  their  house  against  the  Christian  congregation. 
We  put  Mr.  Post  on  the  stand  as  our  witness.  No  wonder  the  defense  ex- 
claimed, "What  does  this  mean?"  We  had  levied  a  conscript  from  their 
own  ranks.  He  sought  to  avoid  answering  many  of  our  direct  questions, 
but  we  enforced  a  definite  yes  or  no  from  him,  and  when  he  finally  left  the 
stand  he  had  testified  to  the  correctness  of  our  position,  and  announced 
our  faith  and  practices,  one  by  one,  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  divine 
teaching.  We  were  prepared  to  rest  when  we  did,  and  permit  the  defense 
to  call  their  witnesses. 

They  swore  a  dozen  witnesses,  the  majority  of  them  ministers  in  vari- 
ous churches.  The  first  witness  they  called  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  W. 
Smith.  He  is  a  man  of  considerable  ability,  and  evidently  a  theologian. 
He  testified  that  one  must  have  a  correct  opinion  on  all  the  things  taught 
in  the  Bible,  and  that  this  correct  opinion  is  necessary  to  make  us  wise 
unto  salvation.  But  how  shall  one  know  that  he  has  a  "  correct  opinion  on 
all  the  things  taught  in  the  Bible"?  An  opinion  occupies  a  position  some- 
where this  side  of  knowledge.  It  is  always  more  or  less  speculative.  One 
man's  opinion  is  about  as  good  as  another's,  for  at  the  best  it  has  no 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  2jj 

assurance  of  certainty.  An  opinion  may  be  correct,  or  it  may  not  be  cor- 
rect. No  man  can  verify  his  opinion  on  scholastic  theology.  He  may  be 
certain  in  his  opinion,  that  his  opinion  is  correct ;  but  this  is  his  nearest 
approach  to  a  certainty.  It  is  confidence  in  his  own  convictions.  School 
theology  is  dogmatic,  and  it  will  require  the  daylight  of  eternity  to  make 
certain  any  of  its  opinions.  Does  not  the  witness  give  too  broad  a  defini- 
tion of  theology  when  he  says  it  "must  be  a  correct  opinion  on  all  the 
things  taught  in  the  Bible"?  Is  not  his  theology  at  fault  when  he  says 
this  correct  opinion  is  necessary  to  salvation  ?  John  Calvin  was  a  theolo- 
gian of  some  ability;  from  the  evidence  it  appears  that  John  Calvin  and 
John  Smith  do  not  have  the  same  "opinion  on  all  things  taught  in  the 
Bible."  One  is  wrong.  There  may  be  a  fair  chance  for  both  of  them  to 
be  wrong.  Mr.  Smith's  definition  of  orthodoxy  breaks  down  with  its 
vastness.  Would  not  the  witness  have  been  nearer  right  if  he  had  said : 
"Opinions  have  no  necessary  connection  with  orthodoxy"? 

Every  one  should  have  right  opinions,  but  a  wise  God  has  not  sus- 
pended salvation  upon  their  correctness.  When  the  witness  makes  them 
necessary  to  salvation  he  has  erected  conditions  of  salvation  unknown  to 
the  gospel.  There  is  not  a  single  proposition  in  the  entire  range  of  "opin- 
ions "  upon  which  salvation  is  predicated  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  defense  did  not  attempt  to  have  Mr.  Smith  testify  on  the  gospel 
requirements  in  salvation.  We  had  established  that  they  were  faith,  re- 
pentance, confession,  and  baptism.  When  they  passed  without  comment, 
and  no  evidence  was  offered  on  them,  they  are  to  be  accepted  by  you  as 
admitted  by  the  defense.  An  effort  now  arose  to  make  all  people  unortho- 
dox who  do  not  accept  the  popular  statements  of  "  theology."  Mr.  Smith 
said:  "So  far  as  the  Christian  Church  differs  from  other  denominations 
it  is  not  orthodox."  His  standard  of  religion  is  that  the  majority  makes  a 
thing  right.  But  I  rather  think  Fred  Douglas  enunciated  a  better  princi- 
ple when  he  said :  "  God  and  one  man  on  the  side  of  the  right  is  the  ma- 
jority  of  creation." 

If  the  majority  of  the  denominations  make  a  faith  or  practice  right, 
then  all  the  reformers  have  been  wrong ;  the  Saviour  was  a  heretic,  and 
Luther  was  unsound.  But  majorities  have  nearly  always  been  wrong, 
from  Aaron  and  his  golden  calf,  to  the  orthodox  trial  at  Albion.  There 
is  no  argument  in  a  majority,  except  the  argument  of  numbers.  To  accept 
a  position  as  right  because  a  majority  of  the  churches  hold  it,  is  the  plea 
of  cowardice ;  to  pronounce  a  church  unorthodox  because  it  differs  from 
the  other  churches,  is  to  overthrow  the  authority  of  God,  and  erect  in  its 
stead  the  opinions  of  men. 

This  witness  was  confined  chiefly  to  discussing  the  direct  operation  of 
the  Spirit,  total  depravity,  and  the  kindred  questions  of  theology.  Upon 


234.  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

these  points  he  said  that  as  far  as  he  had  heard  our  teaching  and  preaching 
he  did  not  think  it  was  orthodox.  He  was  able  to  name  but  one  man  he 
had  ever  heard  preach  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  that  was  Benjamin 
Franklin.  We  wanted  him  to  quicken  his  memory ;  still  he  could  not  name 
another  preacher  he  had  ever  heard,  nor  a  book  from  us  that  he  had  ever 
read.  Well,  if  he  had  heard  Franklin  on  the  Trinity,  did  he  deny  th« 
three  personages  in  the  Godhead?  And  he  answered,  "No;  not  in  terms.'' 
Then  we  asked  if  he  did  in  some  other  way,  and  his  answer  was,  tha\ 
"  the  sermon  gave  him  the  impression,  that  it  impliedly  said,  the  Spirit  in 
its  operations  was  a  separate  and  distinct  being."  This  aged  minister, 
who  heard  a  sermon  many  years  ago,  not  one  word  of  which  he  can  repro- 
duce, and  from  what  he  thought  the  speaker  implied,  comes  into  a  court- 
room and  swears  that  a  great  religious  body  of  people  are  unorthodox  and 
heretical.  He  was  examined  for  an  hour  on  thought,  growing  out  of  this 
answer,  and  steadfastly  sought  to  convey  his  "impression"  to  the  jury. 
It  was  Mr.  Post  who  spoke  of  Mr.  Campbell's  recent  work.  Why,  Mr. 
Campbell  has  been  dead  for  nearly  twenty  years.  The  book  to  which  he 
referred  was  written  more  than  half  a  century  ago.  From  books  they  had 
read,  or  sermons  they  had  heard,  these  witnesses  knew  nothing,  absolutely 
nothing  of  the  teachings  of  this  Church.  They  spoke  only  from  "  impres- 
sions" and  "understandings."  And  yet  on  this  basis,  where  a  prudent 
man  hesitates  to  speak  in  the  common  affairs  of  life,  they  hold  up  their 
hands  before  God  and  solemnly  swear  we  are  heretical  teachers.  It  is  my 
conviction  that  these  gentlemen,  during  this  trial,  have  heard  more  of  the 
jospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  teachings  of  this  Church,  than  they  ever 
heard  before. 

We  have  no  objections  to  urge  against  the  views  of  Mr.  Smith  on  the 
Spirit,  the  Trinity,  or  total  depravity.  I  enjoyed  his  discussions;  they 
were  marked  with  ability;  he  is  a  man  of  fixed  views,  and  is  a  store-house 
of  theological  learning.  When  his  opinions  differ  from  ours,  we  are  con- 
tent to  let  him  enjoy  them,  but  when  we  differ  from  him  he  calls  it  heresy. 
Suppose,  however,  it  should  eventually  prove  true  that  we  are  "correct," 
then  our  friend  will  be  glad  that  "opinions"  don't  make  for  salvation. 
Grant  that  his  explanations  upon  these  doctrinal  points  are  correct,  he  did 
not  show  where  salvation  had  ever  been  ascribed  to  any  one  of  them.  He 
locates  salvation  with  each  one  of  them,  but  he  failed  to  produce  a  passage 
of  Scripture  that  agreed  with  him.  He  testified  that  it  was  necessary  to 
a  man's  salvation  that  he  have  correct  views  on  the  Trinity.  Yet  Mr.  Post 
testified  that  if  a  man  believed  and  obeyed  what  the  gospel  commanded, 
he  would  be  saved.  Mr.  Smith  made  a  disastrous  failure  in  attempting  to 
show  where  the  gospel  demanded  faith  in  any  formulated  statement  of  *he 
Trinity. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  235 

His  evidence  was  an  argument  on  the  necessity  of  faith  in  scholastic 
divinity.  The  defense  appears  to  have  accepted  the  requirements  for  sal- 
vation that  we  advanced,  and  now  massed  their  efforts  to  establish  "divin- 
ity" as  also  necessary.  It  is  not  needful  to  further  pursue  that  undertak- 
ing in  the  discussion  on  the  things  necessary  to  salvation.  We  have  shown 
the  impotence  of  the  effort,  and  its  utter  uutenableness  in  the  word  of 
God. 

There  was  one  thing  we  wanted  this  witness  to  say  ;  we  desired  him 
to  state  that  the  things  which  the  apostles  told  the  people  to  believe  and 
do  in  order  to  remission  of  past  sins,  and  also  afterwards  told  them  if  they 
kept  these  things  in  memory,  and  added  to  their  lives  the  Christian  graces, 
they  would  be  saved — we  wanted  him  to  say  this  was  true.  We  did  want 
him  to  say  that.  In  the  war  of  questioning  that  ran  for  an  hour  on  this 
point,  his  genius  for  evasion  was  put  to  a  remarkable  strain,  but  we  were 
unable  to  obtain  an  unqualified  answer.  Each  answer  was  given  with  an 
annex  of  explanations.  And  this  venerable  leader  of  the  sacerdotal  forces 
that  rallied  to  the  standard  of  the  defense,  after  nine  hours  of  cross-exam- 
ination retired  from  the  stand,  refusing  to  indorse  the  apostles  on  the  essen- 
tials to  salvation,  without  adding  a  proviso  thereto. 

During  this  examination  various  extracts  were  read  from  the  debates 
and  writings  of  Mr.  Campbell,  and  from  the  creeds  of  many  of  the 
churches,  upon  doctrinal  divinity.  Our  witnesses  also  testified  quite  fully 
upon  these  points.  The  fact  was  disclosed  that  there  was  no  universal 
harmony  of  opinion  among  the  churches,  and  that  they  differed  from  each 
other  quite  as  much  as  they  differed  from  us.  Even  the  witness  who  pos- 
sesses a  high  esteem  for  the  denominations,  in  an  unguarded  hour,  took 
them  up,  and  successively  swore  them  all  into  heterodoxy.  It  was  after 
the  defense  had  read  a  long  line  of  quotations  from  our  writers,  and  wit- 
ness pronounced  them  unsound,  that  we  reread  a  part  and  he  emphasized 
their  unsoundness ;  when,  without  notification,  we  read  a  passage  from  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  and  its  was  promptly  pronounced  "not 
sound  doctrine."  In  a  little  time  the  Baptist  Church,  after  the  same  man- 
ner, was  consigned  to  the  same  fate.  Then  we  took  up  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  read  from  it,  and  he  declared  that  unsound ;  so 
the  Presbyterian  Church  was  not  orthodox.  Then  followed  a  number  of 
extracts  from  Mr.  Campbell  on  baptism.  Witness  now  felt  himself  on  safe 
ground  once  more,  for  the  heresy  of  this  was  evident;  but  once  more,  with- 
out notification,  we  changed  books,  and  read  from  John  Wesley's  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,  published  by  the  authority  of  the  Methodist  Church.  We 
read  from  Article  XII.,  on  baptism,  where  the  author  says,  "  It  is  the  act 
by  which  we  enter  the  body  of  Christ.  For  the  Saviour  says,  'except  a 
man  is  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit  he  can  not  enter  the  kingdom  of 


2j6  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

heaven,'"  and  asked  the  witness  what  he  thought  of  that,  and  he  an- 
swered, "unsound  doctrine."  We  then  read  where  Wesley  says,  "bap- 
tism and  regeneration  are  synonymous,  and  that  our  Church  has  always 
believed  and  taught  this."  When  asked  if  this  was  unsound,  the  answer 
was,  that  "  it  was  unsound  and  heretical."  Once  more  we  turned  to  the 
Tracts,  and  read  that,  anciently  circumcision  was  the  act  of  entering  into 
covenant  relation  with  God,  and  as  baptism  stood  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision, it  was  the  act  by  which  we  now  entered  into  covenant  relation  with 
God.  And  the  witness  pronounced  that  unorthodox  and  unsound,  where- 
upon we  lifted  up  the  book  where  he  could  see  it,  and  told  him  we  had 
been  reading  from  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts! 

An  occasional  avoidance  of  a  direct  answer  may  be  overlooked  in  a 
trial,  and  an  inability  to  do  full  justice  to  an  opponent  may  be  expected, 
but  an  evident  purpose  to  impeach  the  integrity  of  a  great  religious  people 
should  be  characterized  in  proper  terms.  This  witness  refused  to  accept 
the  ordinary  understanding  of  the  plainest  statement  made  by  a  member 
of  the  Christian  Church,  saying  he  "did  not  know  what  interpretation 
they  might  give  it,"  The  masterly  statement  of  Mr.  Campbell  on  the 
Spirit's  work  in  redemption,  he  would  not  receive  without  adding  his  un- 
derstanding of  Campbell's  position.  A  lucid  statement  on  depravity, 
he  said  was  good  as  it  stood,  but  before  he  would  pronounce  upon  it  he 
would  have  to  know  "how  it  was  interpreted."  Emphatic  declarations 
on  the  trusting  faith  and  penitence  that  goes  before  baptism,  he  would  not 
accept,  insisting  that  the  words  "could  be  given  another  meaning."  We 
read  several  simple  and  commonplace  utterances  on  the  general  features 
of  Christianity,  which  are  written  alike  by  all  people,  but  he  refused  to 
give  them  recognition  unless  he  knew  how  they  were  "understood"  by 
the  church  that  taught  them.  In  all  of  these  answers,  it  was  sought  to 
leave  the  impression  on  the  jury  that  our  published  utterances  did  not  rep- 
resent us;  that  we  formulated  statements  approaching  near  to  the  other 
churches,  but  within  the  church  we  had  a  different  interpretation  of  them  ! 
The  religious  world  may  sometimes  pronounce  us  unorthodox;  but  cowards, 
never.  The  forty  years'  ministry  of  this  gentleman  has  many  times  wit- 
nessed the  bold  proclamation  of  our  plea,  and  grieved  at  its  triumphant  es- 
tablishment. Our  life  has  been  an  open  book. 

When  this  witness  could  do  no  more,  he  sought  to  assail  the  integrity 
of  the  Church  by  implication.  He  is  older  than  the  reformation.  He  saw 
its  feeble  beginnings.  He  heard  it  charged  with  heresy.  He  has  known 
men  and  women  banished  from  home  and  society  for  espousing  its  teach- 
ings. He  beheld  it  in  disgrace,  powerless,  and  everywhere  spoken  against. 
But  he  has  lived.  He  has  seen  that  Church  become  the  third  most  numer- 
ous religious  body  on  the  continent.  He  has  seen  men  and  women  honored 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  2J1} 

at  home  and  in  society  for  espousing  its  teachings.  He  has  seen  it  become 
famous,  powerful,  and  everywhere  respected.  He  has  seen  its  literature 
and  colleges  move  among  the  front  ranks.  He  has  seen  it  a  church  where 
the  poor  had  the  gospel  preached  unto  them,  and  where  princes  came  to 
worship.  He  has  seen  the  philosopher  of  infidelity  march  up  against  re- 
ligion until  faith  trembled,  and  there  was  no  hand  to  defend ;  but  Camp- 
bell came  forth,  and  Robert  Owen  and  atheistic  philosophy  were  forever 
driven  back.  He  has  seen  Catholicism  vaunt  herself,  and  there  was  none 
to  accept  her  challenge ;  but  Campbell  came,  overthrew  her  Archbishop, 
and  stayed  the  threatening  tide.  He  has  seen  Ingersoll,  in  rampant  blas- 
phemy, travel  the  land,  and  the  replying  sermons  of  the  preachers  attract 
only  a  local  notice;  but  we  send  forth  Judge  Jeremiah  Black,  who  meets 
him  in  the  greatest  of  the  magazines,  where  they  have  the  world's  civiliza- 
tion for  an  audience,  and  universal  reason  rejoices  in  the  triumph  of  faith. 
He  has  seen  the  country  turn  wearily  from  the  seekers  after  her  place  and 
power,  and  ask  for  a  leader  whose  life  was  true  and  whose  heart  was  pure ; 
and  he  has  seen  this  Church  give  James  A.  Garfield,  and  beheld  him  con- 
fessed the  completest  representative  of  American  life  ever  in  the  Pres- 
idency ;  when  he  lay  smitten  and  stricken,  the  nation  knelt  at  his  bedside 
in  prayer  ;  he  went  down  unto  his  death  with  his  plume  unsullied  and  his 
faith  unshaken ;  the  heart  of  the  world  followed  his  cortege,  and  wept  its 
sympathy  at  his  grave.  He  has  seen  the  charged  heresy  of  this  Church  in 
a  court  of  justice  established  as  the  gospel  of  God!  Notwithstanding  alj 
this,  his  ripe  age,  and  holy  calling,  he  filled  his  evidence  concerning  oui 
advocacy  and  practice  with  a  spirit  that  is  unjust,  and  a  doubt  that  is  ma- 
licious. But  why  pursue  this  testimony  longer  ?  Let  Mr.  Smith,  with  his 
shattered  veracity,  be  conveyed  to  a  final  resting-place.  Let  it  be  in  the 
shade  of  some  secluded  retreat.  Let  it  be  where  the  splendid  tread  of  this 
gospel  plea,  as  it  fills  the  world,  can  not  disturb  his  repose.  If  possible,  let 
his  grave  be  so  deep  that  Gabriel  can  not  awake  him.  It  would  be  unkind 
to  resurrect  him,  for  in  eternity  he  would  be  a  man  without  a  country. 

At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Smith's  testimony,  the  defense  decided  not  to 
pursue  their  evidence  further,  and  dismissed  their  remaining  witnesses  unused. 

The  learned  counsel  and  Mr.  Carpenter  had  a  serious  war  in  agreeing 
on  the  time  when  the  Church  of  Christ  was  established.  The  lawyer 
wanted  to  give  the  Church  the  same  origin  as  the  denominational  bodies. 
If  witness  had  consented  to  that,  he  would  have  yielded  a  principle,  and 
cast  us  on  to  a  common  footing  with  the  sects.  But  the  integrity  of  our 
plea  repudiates  a  human  origin.  No  man,  as  such,  ever  organized  this 
Church.  We  do  not  claim  to  be  a  branch  of  Christ's  Church.  We  are  the 
Church  itself.  His  Church  has  no  branch  churches.  The  individual  mem- 
bers are  the  branches;  for  the  Saviour,  speaking  to  bis  disciples,  said,  "I 


2j8  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

am  the  vine,  and  ye  are  the  branches."  If  you  give  us  a  denominational 
creation,  I  will  grant  that  we  are  not  orthodox  in  that  particular.  This 
whole  doctrine  of  branch  churches  is  subversive  of  the  unity  and  perfection 
of  the  body  which  the  divine  Master  established  on  the  earth.  And  a 
church,  to  be  the  Christian  Church  indeed,  must  be  identical  in  all  the 
essential  particulars  with  that  primitive  establishment  —  it  must  have  the 
same  ceremony  of  initiation,  the  same  constitution  and  by-laws  to  govern 
it,  the  same  doctrine  to  continue  steadfast  in,  and  the  same  name.  Any  de- 
viation from  this  is  wrong.  It  matters  not  whether  that  deviation  is  the 
leaving  off  of  very  much,  as  the  Universalists  and  Unitarians,  or  the  add- 
ing on,  and  also  the  leaving  off  of  much,  as  the  orthodox  churches. 

Alexander  Campbell  did  not  start  the  Christian  Church.  "  When  was  it 
organized?"  counsel  thundered,  and  the  witness  said,  "About  fifty  days 
after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost."  Counsel  strove 
hard  to  compromise  the  witness.  The  audience  listened  with  anxious  in- 
terest, for  here  a  fundamental  principle  was  involved ;  and  when  the  answer 
was  given,  that  the  Church  was  established  about  fifty  days  after  the  cruci- 
fixion, on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  murmur  of  applause  that  moved 
through  the  audience  that  filled  the  court-room,  was  evidence  that  fidelity 
to  God  was  appreciated  by  this  people.  What  Mr.  Carpenter  nieant  was, 
that  the  Church,  which  Christ  established,  was  yet  standing  ;  that  when  he 
said  to  Peter,  "On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it,"  he  uttered  a  truth.  That  that  house  stands 
yet,  not  a  foundation  stone  removed,  not  a  stanchion  gone,  not  a  pillar 
crumbled,  not  a  light  on  its  altar  gone  out;  it  stands  intact  to-day  as  when 
it  was  first  erected,  immovable  and  indestructible  forever.  Through  all 
the  rise  and  fall  of  heresies  and  faiths,  that  house  has  stood,  with  its  form 
and  its  laws  unchangeable.  And  in  all  these  ages,  whenever  a  penitent  soul 
confessed  its  faith  in  Christ,  and  obeyed  his  gospel,  it  has  entered  into  this 
church.  Whether  there  were  many  or  few,  at  a  given  place  or  time,  it 
mattered  not.  Wherever  one  obeyed  this  gospel,  even  if  he  was  the  only 
one  in  all  the  world,  he  entered  into  this  house  of  God.  That  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  witness.  When  we,  as  a  people,  thus  obey,  we  have  not  created 
a  new  church.  When  we  have  the  same  ceremony  of  initiation,  the  same 
constitution  and  by-laws  to  govern  us,  the  same  doctrine  to  continue  stead- 
fast in,  and  the  same  name,  and  nothing  whatever  added  to  or  taken  from 
the  divine  plan,  we  are  the  same  church.  This  Christian  Church,  to  which 
I  belong,  was  established  fifty  days'after  the  crucifixion,  and  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Can  defendant  who  assails  us  say  that  he  has  the  same  ceremo- 
nies of  initiation,  the  same  laws,  the  same  doctrine  and  the  same  name,  not 
having  added  anything  thereto,  or  taken  anything  therefrom  ?  We  can  1 
Here,  again,  we  find  ourselves  in  perfect  fidelity  to  the  divine  model. 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  239 

Viewing  the  "orthodox  churches"  in  the  light  of  the  spirit  that  ani- 
mated these  when  they  were  established,  our  position  is  unique  and  consum- 
mating. Looking  at  these  churches  as  organizations  that  have  crystallized, 
and  propose  to  stay  permanently  where  they  are,  we  have  no  particular 
connection  with  them ;  but,  viewed  in  the  light  of  efforts  to  throw  off  the 
apostasy  of  Romanism,  and  to  seek  for  the  primitive  faith  and  practice,  we 
have  a  very  intimate  relation.  There  is  a  great  common  purpose  in  our 
battle,  and  the  glorious  object  at  which  we  aim,  the  restoration  of  primitive 
Christianity,  is  of  infinite  concern.  Let  us  examine  the  Protestant  bodies 
in  their  reformatory  character.  They  were  all  a  protest  against  Romanism. 
The  protest  created  them.  They  were  pro — test — ants.  Men  protested 
against  what  they  conceived  to  be  wrong  in  the  mother  church. 

The  primitive  church  had  a  clearly  defined  practice.  We  may  enumerate, 
that  Christ  was  preached,  and  never  a  doctrine  as  such ;  sinners  obeyed 
from  the  heart,  and  gladly,  whatever  the  apostles  commanded  them  to  do, 
and  no  service  was  accepted  as  obedience  that  differed  from  the  exact  divine 
requirement ;  this  obedience  was  the  vehicle  that  transported  the  sinner 
into  the  church ;  Christ's  body  was  at  a  place,  and  the  sinner,  as  to  a  dom- 
icile, must  arise  and  go  there,  that  he  might  enter  in ;  those  coming  into 
Christ,  Christians,  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  doctrine ;  they 
knew  nothing  else  as  doctrine.  Now,  this  life  of  Christ,  contained  in  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke  and  John — this  preaching  of  Christ's  gospel  to  sinners, 
and  the  practices  connected  therewith,  contained  in  Acts  of  Apostles — the 
letters  of  instruction  to  those  who  had  become  Christians,  contained  in 
Romans,  Corinthians,  etc. — with  Revelations,  constitute  the  counsel  and 
wisdom  of  God  in  the  Church.  Congregations  established  in  Christ's 
body  by  this  "  royal  law,"  were  soon  multiplied,  enlarged  and  augmented 
throughout  the  civilized  world. 

When  the  Council  of  Nice  organized  a  doctrine  in  the  Trinity,  which 
drove  men  from  the  church,  and  forbid  others  an  entrance  therein,  a  step 
was  taken  which  departed  from  the  clearly  defined  practice  of  the  primitive 
church.  These  departing  steps  multiplied  with  increasing  Councils,  until 
the  church  stood  forth  robed  in  complete  apostasy.  It  was  now  Romanism, 
and  no  longer  The  Church.  Men  sometimes  wonder  at  the  Dark  Ages,  and 
inquire  the  cause.  There  is  no  wonder  here.  When  the  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  is  put  out,  darkness  must  ensue.  In 
one  sense,  his  light  was  yet  in  the  world  ;  "  but  if  the  light  in  thee  be  dark- 
ness, how  great  is  that  darkness !  "  In  proportion  as  men  retire  from  the  di- 
vine likeness,  in  just  that  proportion  do  they  retire  from  a  prosperous  do- 
minion over  the  earth.  When  God  created  man  in  his  image  and  like- 
ness, he  gave  him  dominion  over  the  earth;  and  as  man  restores  that 
marred  likeness,  he  regains  earthly  dominion.  Great  and  beneficial  results 


24.0  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

to  humanity  are  not  possible  in  heathen  lands.  Railroads,  telegraphs,  tel- 
ephones, the  application  of  steam  and  electricity,  are  not  possible  among 
the  heathen.  So  among  a  continent  of  people,  when  the  restored  likeness 
is  debased,  advancement  halts,  and  prosperity  turns  back  on  its  axis.  From 
Nice  to  Worms,  the  likeness  largely  restored  was  prostituted,  and  the  world 
of  growth  was  worse  than  standing  still. 

\Ve  locate  the  organization  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the 
Council  of  Nice.  It  was  a  new  establishment  in  the  religious  world.  Its 
Councils  decreed  its  articles  of  faith,  prescribed  its  practice,  and  defined 
heresy.  The  Bible  was  always  theoretically  upheld ;  but  in  the  course  of 
years  a  creed  grew  up,  which  was  consulted  by  every  inquirer,  which  was 
the  standard  in  every  appeal,  and  which  controlled  every  movement  of  tht 
church.  The  church  was  founded  on  the  creed. 

The  important  doctrines  of  Christianity  were  perverted  in  the  most 
wretched  manner,  and  such  primitive  purity  as  remained  was  obscured  with 
extravagant  opinions  and  idle  fancies.  The  essence  of  religion  was  placed 
in  the  worship  of  images  and  departed  saints.  The  fears  of  purgatory  ex- 
ceeded the  apprehension  of  eternal  torments.  The  latter  they  expected  to 
avoid  through  the  intercession  of  the  saints,  but  none  dared  to  hope  for 
heaven  without  the  pains  of  purgatory  first.  The  people  were  not  privi- 
leged to  read  the  gospel ;  it  was  a  sealed  book,  and  given  out  only  by 
priestly  interpreters.  A  long  series  of  reprobate  practices  and  apostate 
faiths  poured  a  current  of  calamitous  events  about  the  church,  until  Zion, 
on  the  beacon  hill  of  the  world,  became  black  as  sackcloth  of  hair,  and 
the  sweet  waters  from  her  fountain  of  salvation  and  peace  had  turned  to 
wormwood  and  gall. 

It  was  necessary  that  a  reformation  should  come.  God  had  said  it 
would  come.  But  for  nearly  twelve  hundred  years  it  did  not  come.  It 
required  more  than  a  thousand  years  for  the  Church  of  Christ  to  reach  the 
depths  of  complete  apostasy.  But  having  turned  from  the  simplicity  of  the 
divine  establishment,  there  was  no  halting-grounds  until  the  depths  were 
reached.  Then  a  reaction  began.  One  man  alone  could  not  produce  a 
reformation.  Reformations  are  not  created  single-handed,  neither  do  they 
come  forth  in  a  day.  They  are  an  influence  that  moves  forth  unseen  and 
unappreciated,  an  unformed  sentiment,  sweeping  over  a  vast  area  of  terri- 
tory, and  occupying  much  time,  and  finally  converging  at  some  center,  and 
pouring  into  one  man  as  through  a  funnel.  He  becomes  the  embodiment  of 
the  principle.  It  is  personified  in  him.  He  is  all  afire  with  its  integrity. 
He  moves  forth  to  its  organization,  and  its  consequent  victory.  So  Luther 
became  the  incarnation  of  the  faith  and  protest  that  had  been  growing  in 
Germany  for  half  a  century.  He  flashed  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  before 
the  dazed  vision  of  the  Pope,  and  at  Augsburg  organized  the  great  return 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  24.1 

to  the  old  paths  of  the  apostles.  The  Lutheran  Church,  founded  on  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  Faith,  did  not  reach  the  old  paths,  but  it  went  as 
far  as  one  generation  could  march.  What  the  world  had  been  growing 
into  for  a  thousand  years  could  not  be  outgrown  in  one  generation. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  criticise  this  stalwart  son  of  the  faith.  He  did 
the  grandest  work  of  any  man  of  his  time.  His  mission  was  single.  No 
man  ever  has  more.  His  work  was  to  arrest  the  career  of  universal  apos- 
tasy. He  did  it.  He  built  his  Church  on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which 
was  a  protest  against  Romanism;  but  must  needs  leave  the  consummation  of 
his  holy  purpose  —  the  restoring  of  the  simple  primitive  Church  —  to  the 
ages  after  him. 

The  spirit  of  protest  moved  in  England,  where  Henry  VIII.  organized 
the  revolt,  and  established  the  Church  of  England,  the  Episcopal  Church. 
The  king  was  moved  against  the  mother  Church  by  his  unrighteous  desire 
to  put  away  his  wile,  and  marry  Anne  Boleyn;  but  God  may  cause  the 
wickedness  of  man  to  glorify  his  cause.  Out  of  the  baseness  of  Henry's 
adultery  England,  with  her  vast  influence,  took  up  her  march  from  Rome. 
The  Church  of  England  was  founded  on  what  we  may  term  the  Episcopa- 
lian creed.  It  did  not  pass  over  all  creeds  and  councils,  and  take  its  stand 
on  the  ground  its  movement  embodied.  This  was  not  possible ;  but  Eng- 
land's coming  made  the  Reformation  a  certainty. 

Next  came  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  spirit  of  reform  was  abroad 
in  the  world,  and  would  not  down.  Bold  spirits  were  hurrying  in  every 
direction  to  find  the  Church  from  which  the  fathers  had  wandered.  As 
men  surrounded  by  a  fog  in  an  untraveled  and  dangerous  valley  seek  to 
escape  and  find  safety,  all  alike  interested,  but  each  distrusting  the  other's 
way,  and  with  a  confidence  in  his  own  that  is  born  only  of  necessity,  so  did 
scores  of  reformers  toil  through  this  age  to  rid  themselves  from  the  warp 
of  judgment  which  twelve  centuries  of  apostasy  had  thrown  about  the 
Church,  and  come  to  know  the  truth  as  the  early  Christians  knew  it,  and 
stand  where  they  stood.  In  Geneva  John  Calvin  gave  to  the  world  his 
singular  and  wonderful  doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Decrees.  A  hundred  years 
after  Luther  they  crystallized  into  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  gave  us  the  Presbyterian  Church.  This  Confession  was  not  the  story 
of  the  cross  simply,  as  it  was  preached  by  Peter  and  John.  It  was  a  feel- 
ing through  the  fog,  if  haply  they  might  find  the  house  which  they 
sought. 

Out  of  this  same  spirit  came  the  Baptist  Church,  and  built  itself  on  the 
Philadelphia  Confession.  In  that  they  expressed  what  they  believed  to  be 
the  right  road  to  the  grounds  of  common  interest.  But  the  way  was  so  be> 
clouded  they  could  not  venture  yet  into  the  Bible  alone,  but  must  have  a 
creed  as  a  staff  to  guide  and  protect  them.  Religious  thought  was  steadily 


242  Qur  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

rising  out  of  the  valley.  Men  now  needed  but  little  of  councils,  conven- 
tions and  creeds  to  help  them.  They  were  now  beginning  to  see  each  other 
face  to  face.  The  Bible  itself  was  begun  to  be  read.  It  had  become  a 
sign-board,  on  which  the  hurriers  by  could  read  the  way. 

This  same  spirit  brought  forth  the  Methodist  Church.  John  Wesley 
never  intended  to  establish  the  Methodist  Church.  But  the  tendency  of 
worldliness  in  the  churches  was  paralyzing  all  that  had  been  gained  by  the 
Reformation  in  other  respects,  and  a  path  of  real  piety  must  be  sought  out. 
The  methods  employed  by  Wesley  to  infuse  spiritual  life  into  the  people, 
were  original  and  peculiar.  In  the  course  of  time  they  assumed  a  system, 
and  took  on  the  machinery  necessary  to  continue  the  movement.  Out  of 
this  an  organization  grew,  that  ripened  into  the  Methodist  Church.  It  took 
on  itself  a  name  indicative  of  its  peculiarity,  method — ist,  and  consigned 
itself  thereto  by  establishing  the  Discipline,  a  creed  conforming  therewith, 
which  was  to  control  all  its  actions.  The  religious  world  had  progressed  so 
far  into  the  light,  that  there  was  little  need  of  longer  resorting  to  experi- 
ments. There  was  small  use  for  any  discipline  coined  to  assist  a  Christian. 
I  have  always  thought  that  John  Wesley  ought  to  have  protested  against 
the  hierarchy  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  against  all  human  appliances 
and  church  creeds,  and  with  his  devout  nature  and  splendid  powers,  called 
believers  to  the  simple  word  of  God,  and  it  alone.  It  must  be  that  I  am 
wrong,  that  the  fullness  of  time  had  not  yet  come,  and  that  the  mission  of 
this  saintly  man  lay  along  the  path  of  a  restoration  of  personal  piety.  The 
world  was  not  prepared  for  a  restoration  of  piety  when  Luther  came,  or 
Henry,  or  Calvin ;  their  movements  gave  that  which  the  times  required. 
But  there  was  a  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteousness  when  Wesley 
came.  He  filled  the  want  of  the  soul.  God  appears  to  have  assigned  one 
task  to  each  of  these  reformers,  even  as  he  gave  one  task  to  Moses  and  an- 
other to  Joshua.  Wesley  was  a  glorious  herald — an  unconscious  John  the 
Baptist,  setting  in  order  the  last  work  for  the  restored  kingdom. 

The  spirit  that  had  worked  among  men  for  three  hundred  years 
brought  forth  the  movement  in  which  we  are  engaged,  and  realized  the 
prophecy  of  Worms.  Mr.  Campbell  was  the  leader  of  the  special  move- 
ment now  known  as  the  Current  Reformation.  He  did  not  seek  a  new 
church,  and  earnestly  protested  against  the  formation  of  another  sect.  No 
sect  was  created,  no  church  was  organized.  But  a  religious  body  was  pre- 
sented to  the  world,  whose  existence  was  not  a  purposed  protest  against 
Romanism.  It  had  moved  from  a  protest  to  an  affirmative  plea.  It  was 
not  founded  on  a  creed.  Its  faith  was  not  defined  by  formulated  articles, 
and  the  edicts  of  Councils  did  not  give  it  shape.  It  rested  on  the  word  of 
God.  It  rested  on  the  word  of  God  only.  Every  practice  which  the  prim- 
itive church  practiced,  it  put  into  practice ;  every  person  or  doctrine 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  24.3 

which  the  primitive  church  required  a  faith  in,  it  required  a  faith  in. 
Whatever  practice  the  primitive  church  did  not  operate,  or  faith  not  re- 
quired, it  made  no  movement  in.  It  stood  where  the  primitive  church 
stood.  The  grand  march  began  at  Augsburg,  and  extending  over  three 
hundred  years  of  toil  and  struggle,  reached  its  blessed  consummation  when 
a  handful  of  Disciples,  weary  with  the  way  and  bruised  in  the  conflict,  cast 
themselves  on  to  the  word  of  God  alone.  Up  out  of  the  valley,  the  "Old 
Paths  "  had  been  reached. 

Primitive  Christianity  was  restored.  God  had  built  the  house,  and  it 
was  appointed  with  every  appliance  to  move  its  vast  interests  in  His  service. 
Having  reached  the  coveted  ground,  it  only  remained  to  operate  the  divine 
appliances,  to  make  good  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  and  the  labor  of  the  re- 
formers. Has  it  been  done?  Have  we  only  reached  the  goal  to  which  the 
Lord's  people  started,  or  have  we  carried  consummation  to  a  fruition,  and 
entered  into  the  practices  of  the  Israel  of  God? 

This  Church  preaches  the  gospel  to  sinners  as  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation,  and  never  a  doctrine  as  such.  Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the 
primitive  church  did ;  therefore  it  is  apostolic.  This  Church  teaches  the 
sinner  to  have  faith  in  Christ,  repent  of  his  sins,  confess  his  Saviour,  and 
be  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  and  he 
thereby  becomes  a  child  of  God.  Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the  prim- 
itive church  did  ;  therefore  it  is  apostolic.  It  never  requires  faith  in  any 
formulated  statements  of  doctrinal  divinity,  leaving  each  person  free  to  hi» 
own  honest  convictions  thereon.  Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the  prim- 
itive church  did ;  therefore  it  is  apostolic.  This  Church  teaches  those  in 
Christ  to  add  the  Christian  graces,  and  continue  in  the  apostles'  teaching. 
Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the  primitive  church  did ;  therefore  it  is 
apostolic.  This  Church  calls  itself  by  the  name  of  Christ,  by  the  divine 
names,  and  rejects  all  other  names.  Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the 
primitive  church  did ;  therefore  it  is  apostolic.  This  Church  excludes  all 
confessions,  disciplines  and  creeds,  and  takes  the  word  of  God  alone  as  its 
rule  and  guide.  Is  this  heterodox  ?  It  is  what  the  primitive  church  did  ; 
therefore  it  is  apostolic.  This  Church  practices  or  excludes,  respectively, 
everything  here  enumerated.  Mr.  Edwards,  Mr.  Chapman,  Mr.  Carpenter, 
swore  that  we  did  so,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Post  testified  that  this  would  make  a 
man  a  child  of  God,  and  save  his  soul.  This  is  not  heterodox,  for  it  is 
what  the  primitive  church  did,  and  is  therefore  apostolic. 

The  testimony  of  the  witnesses  reveals  this  Church  as  holding  the 
exact  faith  of  the  early  church,  and  using  every  form  of  its  practice.  It 
reveals  that  nothing  is  omitted  that  the  early  church  operated,  and  not  a 
name,  or  a  ceremony,  or  a  creed,  or  anything  whatever,  has  been  added 
thereto.  It  does  as  that  church  did.  This  is  Christianity  restored. 


344  Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts. 

The  Reformers  labored  to  bring  the  church  back  to  God.  They  spent 
their  lives  in  this  work,  and  each  one  moved  the  great  march  a  lifetime's 
journey  nearer  home.  Calvin  could  not  have  done  his  work  in  the  days  of 
Luther.  No  one  of  these  men  could  have  come  at  the  time  of  the  other. 
Their  movements  followed  each  other  in  a  necessary  sequence.  Lutner 
tore  down  Papal  assumptions,  and  restored  private  judgment  in  divine 
things.  Calvin  came,  and  restored  God's  sovereignty  in  the  church.  Wes- 
ley came,  and  established  human  responsibility — that  every  man  must  obey 
God  for  himself.  But  neither  of  these  great  principles,  operated  alone, 
could  restore  the  church.  Campbell  came,  and  harmonized  them,  where 
their  extreme  doctrines  were  conflicting  with  each  other,  and  revealed  their 
perfect  accord  in  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  thus  made  possible  the  union  of 
all  Christians  on  the  word  of  God.  His  was  the  consummating  work — the 
organization  of  their  materials.  Out  of  them  he  brought  a  distinctive  and 
perfect  plea.  For  more  than  a  thousand  years  the  church  had  traveled 
down  into  apostasy ;  these  reformers,  with  their  co-workers,  moved  a  re- 
turn. They  marched  on  for  three  hundred  years,  following  each  other  in 
a  necessary  and  divinely  appointed  order.  Such  an  embattled  host  earth 
never  saw  before.  Not  like  the  baffled  and  beaten  crusaders,  as  they  filed 
across  the  plains  of  Palestine,  forsaking  their  defeated  hopes,  and  fleeing 
to  their  European  homes ;  it  was  rather  the  resolute  sons  of  God,  forsaking 
the  crimes  of  Rome,  while  their  mighty  phalanx,  earth-wide  in  its  advanc- 
ing influence,  moved  on  with  each  new  generation,  in  increasing  faith  and 
hope,  to  the  sepulchre  and  Zion  of  their  Saviour. 

Since  Nice,  the  church  has  wandered  far  from  the  divine  standard, 
each  party  seeking  to  erect  a  standard  of  its  own.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Smith,  in  his 
testimony,  still  clings  to  one  of  these  standards,  and  seeks  to  measure  us 
thereby ;  but  the  evidence  has  revealed  the  divine  standard,  and  shown  the 
so-called  orthodox  test  of  Mr.  Smith  to  be  of  no  value.  It  does  not  meas- 
ure or  touch  the  eternal  concern  of  the  soul,  and  its  struggle  in  the 
redemptive  scheme.  The  true  standard  and  its  features  have  been  made  to 
stand  out  clear  as  the  sun.  Our  position  has  been  placed  beside  it  in  "  that 
fierce  light  that  beats  against  the  throne " — a  legal  investigation — and 
found  to  fill  it  with  a  divine  perfection. 

Our  position,  with  reference  to  the  Reformers,  is  unique  and  consum- 
mating. The  defense  has  arraigned  us  here  under  charge  of  heterodoxy, 
but  the  evidence  adduced  establishes  us  as  reproducing  the  church  of  the 
New  Testament.  That  makes  sure  our  orthodoxy.  It  demonstrates  that 
we  are  the  fulfillment  of  all  that  was  prophesied  in  the  work  of  the  Re- 
formers ;  but  the  action  of  the  defense  says  that  they  have  stopped  short  of 
realizing  the  restoration  of  the  early  church,  and  on  the  wayside  have  built 
their  temple.  The  defense  that  prosecutes  us  here  must  not  have  halted  in 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  24.5 

the   great   march   to   God,  and   built   on   Gerizim  their  permanent  home. 
Unless  they  now  move  on,  "sin  lieth  at  the  door." 

Much  time  was  spent  in  the  testimony  in  ascertaining  the  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  organization  of  this  church,  and  learning  its  rela- 
tion to  the  various  denominations ;  but  it  was  time  well  spent.  As  these 
facts  of  history  pass  in  review  before  defendant's  church,  they  will  be  con- 
fessed, and  our  position  in  this  historic  march  will  challenge  their  Christian 
integrity  for  recognition.  We  have  examined  the  salient  features  of  the 
evidence,  on  the  things  believed,  and  the  practices  observed,  by  the  Church 
on  trial.  A  few  clearly  established  points  we  may  mention : 

1.  We  accept  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  inspired  of  God. 

2.  The  New  Testament  Scriptures  contain  the  law  of  the  Lord  on  the 
matter  of  salvation. 

3.  Jesus  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.     He  was  the  Son  of  Mary  and 
the  Son  of  God.    "The  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us."    "Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  God,  the  living  One."     Jesus  was  divine  as 
God  is  divine,  and  human  as  man  is  human. 

4.  We  never  preach  a  doctrine,  as  such,  for  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
We  present  the  Christ  alone  as  the  object  of  faith.     No  other  name  (sys- 
tem, authority,  or  doctrine)  is  known  in  heaven  or  among  men,  whereby 
we  may  be  saved. 

5.  The  statements  of   Scripture  concerning  the  Trinity  and  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit  are  accepted  in  their  complete  and  full  meaning.     No 
formulated  statement  of  these  is  ever  made,  in  addition  to  that  which  is 
written. 

6.  A  living  faith  in  the  divine  Saviour  is  the  test  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship.    No  mere  doctrine  is  a  test  of  Christian  fellowship. 

7.  The  sinner  coming  to  Christ,  must  have  faith  in  Him,  repent  of  his 
sins,  confess  his  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  be  baptized  into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.     It  is  admitted  that  in  every  case  of  New 
Testament  conversion  nothing  less  than  these  steps  was  accepted ;  neither 
was   anything  more  required.      This,  and  simply  this,  was  the  apostolic 
practice. 

8.  On  entering  the  Church,  a  righteous  life  must  be  lived.     The  Chris- 
tian graces  must  be  added  to  this  growing  Christlike  character. 

9.  If  a  Christian  sin,  he  is  not  thereby  cut  off  from  the  body  of  Christ, 
to  enter  again  by  his  former  steps  of  initiation,  but  is  restored  to  divine 
favor  by  confession.     "  If  we  confess   our  sins,  he   is  faithful   and  just  to 
forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."     See  John's 
first  letter  to  Christians,  1st  chapter,  gth  verse. 

10.  The   Church   is  known  by  the  name  of  its  divine  relationship — 
The  Church  of  God,  The  Church  of   Christ,  and  The  Church.     Or  when 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Cn.nl  Courts. 

with  reference   to  the   character  of   those  who  compose  it  on  the  earth, 
Christ's  ones,  Christians,  it  is  designated  as  the  Christian  Church. 

11.  This  Church  has  no  collated  Articles  of  Faith  and  associate  rulei 
to  control  it.     It  stands  on  the  one  article  of  faith  which  Peter  laid  down, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."     Jesus  said,  "On  thii 
rock  I  will  build  my  church." 

12.  The  regulation  of  the  daily  life,  the  forms  of   worship,  and  the 
ordinances  of   the  house,  are  those  prescribed   by  Scripture.     No  rule  of 
life,  form  of  worship,  or  ordinance,  has  been  added  thereto.     The  belief 
and    practice    is,  "that   all   Scripture  given  by  inspiration  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in   righteousness,   that 
the  man  of  God  may  become  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works." 

13.  The  church  which   the  gospel  of   the  apostles  established  is  the 
model  for  all  the  ages.     It  was  reared  by  divine  direction,  as  was  the  taber- 
nacle in  the  wilderness.     The  Scriptures,  from  Matthew  to  Revelation,  are 
the  plans  and  specifications  thereof.     They  model  the  building,  and  the  life 
of  the  occupant  therein.     "  If  any  man,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach 
any  other  gospel  than  that  which  is  delivered  you,  let  him  be  accursed." 

14.  In  the  article  of  faith  on  which  the  church  stands,  the  induction  of 
the  sinner  into  the  Church,  the  refusal  to  put  a  construction  on  the  essen- 
tials to  salvation,  but  requiring  the  very  thing  to  be  done  that  is  commanded, 
permitting  freedom  of  opinion  on  all  so-called  doctrines,  wearing  the  Name 
of  divinity  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  names,  rejecting  any  book  or  code 
of  faith  and  practice  except  the  word  of   God :    in  all  these  the  Church 
conforms  to  the  divine  Model.     Where  the  Bible  speaks,  we  speak ;  and 
where  the  Bible  is  silent,  we  are  silent. 

15.  The  word  of  God  is  the  standard  of  orthodoxy. 

We  have  arrived  at  the  close  of  an  important  chapter  in  religious 
history — the  arraignment  of  a  church  before  a  legal  tribunal,  on  the  charge 
of  heresy.  In  the  trial  creeds  and  popular  standards  have  been  rejected, 
and  an  appeal  taken  to  the  word  of  the  living  God.  In  such  an  appeal  the 
truth  is  made  evident,  and  error  is  overthrown.  All  the  evidence  has  been 
given  under  the  solemn  sanction  of  a  judicial  oath.  Four  men  have  testi- 
fied here,  who  have  spent  their  lives  in  the  service  of  this  Church. 
The  dignity  of  their  testimony  establishes  their  ability  to  speak  on 
this  grave  issue.  That  which  we  gave  our  sacred  assurance  at  the 
opening  of  the  trial  we  would  do,  we  have  done.  As  the  trial  has  pro- 
gressed, each  added  hour  of  the  evidence  has  served  to  clear  away  the 
misunderstandings  and  the  erroneous  conclusions  concerning  our  church 
life,  until  it  now  stands  before  you,  divine  for  its  nearness  to  the  Master's 
way,  and  precious  for  its  confident  trust  in  the  great  Father.  We  hare 


Our  Orthodoxy  in  the  Civil  Courts.  j^f 

jnfolded  a  church  that  takes  God  at  his  word ;  whose  practice  is,  "  Thy 
will,  not  mine,  be  done;"  whose  pathway  is  according  to  the  footprints  of 
His  everlasting  testimonies.  We  submit  the  evidence  to  your  decision,  with 
its  eternal  weight  of  interest. 


731] 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  Dl  E  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


3  1205  00934  3060 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    001  029  835    4 


